For those that will be attending the annual AMA meeting in Chicago in June...

[ravupadh]

Does anyone know where we can view the resolutions that will be debated at the meeting this year?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IlDestriero]

Are they resolving to start representing practicing physicians? Maybe that would be too big a change.

 

[Daodejing]

Are they resolving to start representing practicing physicians? Maybe that would be too big a change.

Ouch. The truth hurts.

 

[Psai]

Are they resolving to start representing practicing physicians? Maybe that would be too big a change.

They're probably too busy making up crappy, expensive board examinations that inconvenience students by being mandatory and only offered in select areas.

 

[ravupadh]

FYI... for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support... nor would have a host of other healthcare-related legislation over the past century.

 

[ArmyTiger]

FYI... for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support... nor would have a host of other healthcare-related legislation over the past century.

The ACA does nothing to help practicing physicians, just the insurance companies. Not sure they should be counting that as a feather in their cap.

 

[Daodejing]

 

[DermViser]

FYI... for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support... nor would have a host of other healthcare-related legislation over the past century.

Hey genius, doctors hate the ACA for good reason. You saying, "ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support" shows exactly that THEY DON'T REPRESENT DOCTORS. Thank you for confirming this, even though you did so inadvertently.

Get out of your academic medical school bubble, Mr. AMSA officer.

 

[username456789]

FYI... for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support...

All the more reason to dislike the AMA . . .

 

[DermViser]

The ACA does nothing to help practicing physicians, just the insurance companies. Not sure they should be counting that as a feather in their cap.

Shows you how out of touch medical students are when they say, "for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support" ---- and actually think it's a POSITIVE for doctors, that we should be thankful for. This noob doesn't even realize that the next step of the ACA is to rachet down reimbursements. This has already occurred on the Obamacare exchange plans which is why the networks are so narrow.

 

[DermViser]

All the more reason to dislike the AMA . . .

Forgive the MS-1, he just recently finished his Gross Anatomy and Embryology shelf exams, and thinks that gives him the authority to tell us how great the ACA will be for physicians. After all we all know, that if you can do great in Gross Anatomy and Embryology, you truly know how about the ins and outs of medicine.

and after this quote of his:

"I was looking at my school's match list and I was surprised to see that during last year's match cycle, only 2 people matched into family medicine. I was considering going to into family medicine since I want to go into primary care (private practice) in general and don't want to end up working in a hospital as an internist. However it's surprising to see that only 2 people went into family medicine at my school, while 13 went into peds and 47 went into internal medicine. Granted a lot of those internal medicine residents will probably do a fellowship, but 2 vs. 47 is still a large difference. I was wondering why students who go into primary care choose peds or internal medicine rather than family medicine. I don't want to be restricted to one age group by doing peds/med but if family medicine is the black sheep of medical specialties because of some unbeknownst reason to me I may forced to"

This tells me he'll be a real hypocrite in no time.

 

[ravupadh]

The ACA does nothing to help practicing physicians, just the insurance companies. Not sure they should be counting that as a feather in their cap.

Really? I guess that's why it includes a provision that forces insurance companies to offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing condition or sex and also forces them to allow children to be on their parents plans until the age of 26. I don't think that would exactly translate into extra money in the pockets of insurance companies especially when those with pre-existing conditions would be considered high risk assets for these companies. Obviously there are still huge problems with the act such as the refusal of (mostly red) states to expand Medicaid thus creating a coverage gap in those states but you cannot deny the positives that have come out of this piece of legislation. Heck just this week it was reported that 8 million people have signed up for health care insurance through the federal marketplaces.

 

[VisionaryTics]

Heck just this week it was reported that 8 million people have signed up for health care insurance through the federal marketplaces.

"Look how many people are using this service! It's a success! People like it!"

Well, considering it's now a crime to not have insurance, I'm not really sure why people keep touting this statistic.

 

[ravupadh]

"Look how many people are using this service! It's a success! People like it!"

Well, considering it's now a crime to not have insurance, I'm not really sure why people keep touting this statistic.

It's also a crime not to have auto insurance FYI. And auto insurance costs in some states like New Jersey are enormous.

 

[ArmyTiger]

It's also a crime not to have auto insurance FYI. And auto insurance costs in some states like New Jersey are enormous.

This is not exactly true. First of all, auto insurance is a state to state requirement. Secondly, most states require liability insurance, not personal auto insurance, meaning that you have to be able to fix damage you do to another person's vehicle and person, not your own. And lastly, none of this does anything to disprove the fact that the ACA does nothing to help the everyday headaches and hassles inflicted on doctors by the current medical insurance setup, nor does it do anything to address the costs of medicine.

 

[DermViser]

Really? I guess that's why it includes a provision that forces insurance companies to offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing condition or sex and also forces them to allow children to be on their parents plans until the age of 26. I don't think that would exactly translate into extra money in the pockets of insurance companies especially when those with pre-existing conditions would be considered high risk assets for these companies. Obviously there are still huge problems with the act such as the refusal of (mostly red) states to expand Medicaid thus creating a coverage gap in those states but you cannot deny the positives that have come out of this piece of legislation. Heck just this week it was reported that 8 million people have signed up for health care insurance through the federal marketplaces.

Yeah, it's not like premiums have shot up or anything. Do you actually think you can add another person to an insurance plan, and your premium not increase in price? Did you think you can just add people to a plan for free?

You do know that those 8 million people aren't all people who never had insurance right? Many of those people are those on individual plans who LOST their plan due to not fitting the ACA's mandates.

Do you not understand why governors are not expanding Medicaid? Let's see if you can answer this without getting partisan.

 

[DermViser]

It's also a crime not to have auto insurance FYI. And auto insurance costs in some states like New Jersey are enormous.

You do know that there are more avenues of transportation than just an automobile, right? Yeah, it's not like places in New York, where people mainly take the subway, or anything.

It's a "crime" to not have auto insurance, while actively driving an automobile.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I just ... I don't even...wow.

It's like he's googling ACA in between posts.

 

[Psai]

Really? I guess that's why it includes a provision that forces insurance companies to offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing condition or sex and also forces them to allow children to be on their parents plans until the age of 26. I don't think that would exactly translate into extra money in the pockets of insurance companies especially when those with pre-existing conditions would be considered high risk assets for these companies. Obviously there are still huge problems with the act such as the refusal of (mostly red) states to expand Medicaid thus creating a coverage gap in those states but you cannot deny the positives that have come out of this piece of legislation. Heck just this week it was reported that 8 million people have signed up for health care insurance through the federal marketplaces.

Notice how you're just talking about insurance and not health care. The ACA was nothing more than a giveaway to insurance companies and does nothing to actually increase access to care. Crappy plans and high deductibles probably will lead to decreased utilization. Also expanding medicaid is worthless because medicaid is worthless. Why should doctors take care of people when it costs more to take care of them and get paid for it than the reimbursement received? A good chunk of those 8 million people probably had to sign up because they probably lost their old insurance, which Obama promised wouldn't happen, or because there are significant financial penalties associated with not purchasing insurance.

Please don't talk when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[DermViser]

I just ... I don't even...wow.

It's like he's googling ACA in between posts.

More like Googling ACA talking points at ThinkProgress.

 

[Delrey]

I'm only a first year, but it's pretty obvious to me that a sizable majority of practicing physicians are not huge supporters of the AMA (I've noticed this outside of SDN as well). But... I do think many of us would still agree that the changes in today's healthcare climate mean it is in the best interest of physicians and future physicians to create a stronger political presence.

I do not know much about the feasibility of this (which is why I am throwing this out there for discussion), but does anyone foresee a second national physician advocacy organization springing up within our lifetimes? I would imagine for this organization to garner enough support to be successful it would have to succeed where many of us find the AMA fails (i.e. at effectively lobbying for changes that benefit physicians as a whole). Or do you believe that "fixing the AMA" (by possibly dismembering of the current leadership.. not sure how this would even be done?) is a more feasible option to strengthen our voice? TL;DR... is the AMA our only option to get our voice out there?

It seems extremely discouraging to me because even though many med students/physicians are passionate about fighting for changes we believe will improve our ability practice, it's almost impossible to do so working the hours we do and with the loans we have. I'm sure this is not exclusive to our profession, but it is frustrating.

 

[BurghStudent]

I was debating this as well in the beginning of the year. As an MS1, joining the American Medical Association seems like a natural move. However, instead of avoiding it, what if people like you and me, who want a strong physician lobby, basically infiltrate the AMA? Instead of letting the AMA speak for us, we become the new AMA. I resolved to join. I'm not sure where this is all headed. But more short term, since it is so controversial, is putting any AMA activities on your ERAS a risky move?

 

[Daodejing]

But more short term, since it is so controversial, is putting any AMA activities on your ERAS a risky move?

Regardless of its efficacy in representing physicians (or lack thereof), the AMA is a legitimate organization that has a chapter in practically every medical school; it's not a group of mercenaries for hire. I don't understand why anyone being "involved" at the medical student level would look bad for residency purposes? It's not an ethical dilemma. Besides, all the ECs will be glanced over anyway - "student member of AMA" doesn't seem like a red flag.

 

[BurghStudent]

Regardless of its efficacy in representing physicians (or lack thereof), the AMA is a legitimate organization that has a chapter in practically every medical school; it's not a group of mercenaries for hire. I don't understand why anyone being "involved" at the medical student level would look bad for residency purposes? It's not an ethical dilemma. Besides, all the ECs will be glanced over anyway - "student member of AMA" doesn't seem like a red flag.

That's good to hear. Personally, at the school level, the AMA-MSS always has enough money to host the events I want to see happen. That's what I care about most, using the platform to inform students about issues, like the ACA.

 

[clibby]

I always find these discussions to be a bit ridiculous. It is clear that many medical students don't know the first thing about political change and how to lobby for your views. Yes, there are smaller organizations that represent very specific causes and you should be involved with them, but there is no other organization that attempts to represent all physicians and use that influence to help the majority. The AMA is avenue that should be utilized by physician activists to help effect change. Physicians cannot create a union by law, so the AMA is the closest thing they have. The only way to get your voice heard and change the position of the AMA is to get involved. Most of the physicians are old, white men who no longer practice because they are the only ones to get involved.

Remember, all change is slow, but the AMA's positions do change over time. It is the same as changing politics at your city, county, state, or national levels. All change moves at a glacial pace, but you can't complain and be taken seriously if you are not involved. Anyway, that is my rant on the lack of involvement in organized medicine.

As for the resolutions, the deadline for the final drafts was the 17th. Virtual RefCom should open next week and you will get to see all the resolutions that were submitted. If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

I listened to this radio show the other day about the data release, featuring the AMA president. She seemed very unprepared and spent most of her time spouting platitudes about "working together."

http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp140414medicare_costs_and_y

They should have let the Physicians for Clinical Responsibility guy talk more.

 

[Delrey]

I was debating this as well in the beginning of the year. As an MS1, joining the American Medical Association seems like a natural move. However, instead of avoiding it, what if people like you and me, who want a strong physician lobby, basically infiltrate the AMA? Instead of letting the AMA speak for us, we become the new AMA. I resolved to join. I'm not sure where this is all headed. But more short term, since it is so controversial, is putting any AMA activities on your ERAS a risky move?

Ushering in a "new class" of AMA leaders who are more interested in advocating physicians' rights than things like.... selling physician prescribing information to pharmaceuticals would be ideal. I agree with you, that's not something that is foreseeable within the near future. The AMA members with the actual power right now are I would imagine 1. largely non-practicing 2. have a ton of money and, more importantly, 3. have more connections than those rising up the ladder. The current leadership will have to be replaced, but I imagine, they will hand pick their replacements (at least for the most significant roles). I don't know, I could be wrong. Even though I'm involved in the AMA, I think I'm leaning towards hoping an alternative organization arises in the future but I'm not sure. But I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the matter.

Besides research, the AMA is actually the only campus activity I am actually involved in. Our chapter has close connections to our state medical association, and I have been able to attend several "lobbying days" at our capital. Obviously my presence is making absolutely NO difference whatsoever.... but I'm getting my feet wet and poking around. In regards to ERAS, I have not given it much thought. I always thought no one really looks at extracurricular involvement, as Daodejing suggested. Unless it's "KKK member of the month" perhaps.

 

[Delrey]

I always find these discussions to be a bit ridiculous. It is clear that many medical students don't know the first thing about political change and how to lobby for your views. Yes, there are smaller organizations that represent very specific causes and you should be involved with them, but there is no other organization that attempts to represent all physicians and use that influence to help the majority. The AMA is avenue that should be utilized by physician activists to help effect change. Physicians cannot create a union by law, so the AMA is the closest thing they have. The only way to get your voice heard and change the position of the AMA is to get involved. Most of the physicians are old, white men who no longer practice because they are the only ones to get involved.

Remember, all change is slow, but the AMA's positions do change over time. It is the same as changing politics at your city, county, state, or national levels. All change moves at a glacial pace, but you can't complain and be taken seriously if you are not involved. Anyway, that is my rant on the lack of involvement in organized medicine.

As for the resolutions, the deadline for the final drafts was the 17th. Virtual RefCom should open on the 20th and you will get to see all the resolutions that were submitted. If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me.

Thanks for your input. I agree with you that medical students do not know much about political change. I alluded to the fact that I personally am not knowledgeable about politics in my OP, but, I am interested in learning more about it which is why I posed my question in the first place. You're correct that the AMA is currently the only organization that attempts to represent all physicians. I was wondering if anyone felt that this could change in the future.

Also, thanks for the tidbit that physicians are not legally able to unionize. I am interested in why this is the case, particularly since nurses and other healthcare professionals obviously can. Googling this when I have a moment.

 

[chronicidal]

Does anyone know where we can view the resolutions that will be debated at the meeting this year?

Let me ACTUALLY answer the question from OP.

For our AMA Medical Students Section, all MSS resolutions will be up for public comment through Virtual Reference Committee on next Friday here: http://bit.ly/1mbHy4s

Note that the resolutions for the MSS (and other Sections) feed into but are separate from the AMA House of Delegates meeting that follows immediately afterward.

 

[DermViser]

I always find these discussions to be a bit ridiculous. It is clear that many medical students don't know the first thing about political change and how to lobby for your views. Yes, there are smaller organizations that represent very specific causes and you should be involved with them, but there is no other organization that attempts to represent all physicians and use that influence to help the majority. The AMA is avenue that should be utilized by physician activists to help effect change. Physicians cannot create a union by law, so the AMA is the closest thing they have. The only way to get your voice heard and change the position of the AMA is to get involved. Most of the physicians are old, white men who no longer practice because they are the only ones to get involved.

Remember, all change is slow, but the AMA's positions do change over time. It is the same as changing politics at your city, county, state, or national levels. All change moves at a glacial pace, but you can't complain and be taken seriously if you are not involved. Anyway, that is my rant on the lack of involvement in organized medicine.

As for the resolutions, the deadline for the final drafts was the 17th. Virtual RefCom should open on the 20th and you will get to see all the resolutions that were submitted. If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me.

Yeah, physicians now are active through their specialty medical societies, we could care less about the AMA, esp. with their dues they charge. The only reason, medical students participate in this claptrap, is to augment their CVs to somehow demonstrate they have leadership skills. Residency faculty aren't that stupid. By the time, you guys enter the ranks of the AMA, Obamacare will be fully implemented for a decade.

 

[NickNaylor]

Regardless of its efficacy in representing physicians (or lack thereof), the AMA is a legitimate organization that has a chapter in practically every medical school; it's not a group of mercenaries for hire. I don't understand why anyone being "involved" at the medical student level would look bad for residency purposes? It's not an ethical dilemma. Besides, all the ECs will be glanced over anyway - "student member of AMA" doesn't seem like a red flag.

I thoroughly disagree. Medical students are exactly mercenaries for hire for the AMA because they serve to boost membership rosters. After all, if 90% of medical students are AMA members they must represent medical students well, right? Even though the only reason most people join it is likely to get whatever free garbage they're offering up at the time.

Yeah, I obviously wanted the free Netter's cards as a MS1, but I don't support the AMA's position on a variety of things and didn't want to contribute my name to the cause. Unfortunately most students really don't seem to care and only see the free crap and could care less about what the AMA actually does and advocates for. And that's a real problem. If you agree with what they're doing then by all means join them. But considering that a healthy number of MS1s - hell, even occasional residents - don't even understand the distinction between Medicare and Medicaid, I'm sure these things are completely lost on them. The AMA, on the other hand, benefits by getting to correctly claim that they represent this cohort regardless of what they actually do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clibby]

Also, thanks for the tidbit that physicians are not legally able to unionize. I am interested in why this is the case, particularly since nurses and other healthcare professionals obviously can. Googling this when I have a moment.

Well, they could if they are employees of a hospital, but as independent contractors and/or private practices, they cannot. This is because this would violate anti-trust laws on price fixing and/or restricting a vital trade. These laws are derived from the commerce clause of the constitution. If you are employees of a hospital, however, you can form a union because you are now an employee and employees can be replaced in theory. The hospitals in the area could not work together, though, for the same reasons private physicians can't unionize.

Also, I doubt that any other organization will attempt to be like the AMA. There would be no point other than to serve someone's own self interest. The AMA has the money and the influence already. Any other organization that attempts to represent the diversity of physicians that exist will end up with the same problems the AMA has now. Physicians are a diverse group, so one organization cannot support everyone's ideas, but it can support the majority if they participate. The low participation rate by practicing physicians is one of the reasons why so many influential AMA members are old semi-retired people and it is their voices that get heard.

The problem relying on specialty societies from a political standpoint is that is is easy for someone like a politician to say that ophthalmologists, ENTs, and neurologists don't agree with me, but pediatricians do and so do blah, blah, blah... People generally don't care about the difference in doctors so the opinions of a specialty organization are more easily dismissed when taking a position. This is why all those specialty societies send representatives to the AMA. It is much harder to say that the organization that tries to represent them all doesn't agree with my issue.

 

[Daodejing]

I thoroughly disagree. Medical students are exactly mercenaries for hire for the AMA because they serve to boost membership rosters. After all, if 90% of medical students are AMA members they must represent medical students well, right? Even though the only reason most people join it is likely to get whatever free garbage they're offering up at the time.

Yeah, I obviously wanted the free Netter's cards as a MS1, but I don't support the AMA's position on a variety of things and didn't want to contribute my name to the cause. Unfortunately most students really don't seem to care and only see the free crap and could care less about what the AMA actually does and advocates for. And that's a real problem. If you agree with what they're doing then by all means join them. But considering that a healthy number of MS1s - hell, even occasional residents - don't even understand the distinction between Medicare and Medicaid, I'm sure these things are completely lost on them. The AMA, on the other hand, benefits by getting to correctly claim that they represent this cohort regardless of what they actually do.

I agree with your views and was merely using the analogy to exemplify that there should be no qualms for a student to put down AMA as an EC on his/her ERAS. Although I'm somewhat involved in the AMA at the local and state level, politics is politics as usual and I've grown tired of it. As you said, the majority of students/residents/physicians are uninformed about many issues. I've noticed that those who are knowledgeable about the issues are either A) the AMA brass that for, assuming self-interest, will continue to seek to stay in their positions and keep the status quo or B) informed physicians that would much rather focus on their clinical duties than get involved in the impasse generally encountered in the political realm.

As a student and attendant at conferences, I'm aghast at how the meetings proceed with beaming smiles, hand-shakes, fancy garb, and small-talk, when our profession is literally being battered at all sides by bureaucracy. The system breeds and rewards nepotism and connections, while paying little more than an afterthought to the predicament we're in.

 

[DermViser]

I thoroughly disagree. Medical students are exactly mercenaries for hire for the AMA because they serve to boost membership rosters. After all, if 90% of medical students are AMA members they must represent medical students well, right? Even though the only reason most people join it is likely to get whatever free garbage they're offering up at the time.

Yeah, I obviously wanted the free Netter's cards as a MS1, but I don't support the AMA's position on a variety of things and didn't want to contribute my name to the cause. Unfortunately most students really don't seem to care and only see the free crap and could care less about what the AMA actually does and advocates for. And that's a real problem. If you agree with what they're doing then by all means join them. But considering that a healthy number of MS1s - hell, even occasional residents - don't even understand the distinction between Medicare and Medicaid, I'm sure these things are completely lost on them. The AMA, on the other hand, benefits by getting to correctly claim that they represent this cohort regardless of what they actually do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same way the idiots at AMSA represent all medical students. Like many very huge national organizations, the LEADERSHIP of an organizations can be very much detached from those they are representing.

When you have medical students (who academically smart) that sign up for organization based on getting "free" Netter's Atlas, without looking at what they actually fight for, it tells you a lot. Not surprising as medical students tend to be very ignorant (willfully?) about medicine in general, which can easily be taken advantage of.

 

[DermViser]

As a student and attendant at conferences, I'm aghast at how the meetings proceed with beaming smiles, hand-shakes, fancy garb, and small-talk, when our profession is literally being battered at all sides by bureaucracy. The system breeds and rewards nepotism and connections, while paying little more than an afterthought to the predicament we're in.

Yes, those are the ones who have benefited IMMENSELY from the system as it is - when Medicare paid full sticker price for physician fees.

 

[NickNaylor]

The same way the idiots at AMSA represent all medical students. Like many very huge national organizations, the LEADERSHIP of an organizations can be very much detached from those they are representing.

When you have medical students (who academically smart) that sign up for organization based on getting "free" Netter's Atlas, without looking at what they actually fight for, it tells you a lot. Not surprising as medical students tend to be very ignorant (willfully?) about medicine in general, which can easily be taken advantage of.

Yup. I think I'm a little more optimistic than you and would like to hope that these organizations were initially created for good reasons, but it is seemingly inevitable that organizations become focused on their own survival rather than their stated purpose once they become large enough. The AMA is no different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DermViser]

Yup. I think I'm a little more optimistic than you and would like to hope that these organizations were initially created for good reasons, but it is seemingly inevitable that organizations become focused on their own survival rather than their stated purpose once they become large enough. The AMA is no different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh yes, I agree when they were initially created, they very much were for good reasons and served their purpose. As an organization gets
bigger, more visible, and gets more clout, that changes. Perfect example, the AMA: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/who-does-the-ama-really-represent/

"According to Senator Lott’s 2001 letter, revenues from the AMA’s monopoly control of the coding system generated about $71 million in sales and royalty income a year...In all, net membership dues accounted for less than 16 percent of 2008 revenues. At $43.9 million, dues revenues were down considerably from the $57.7 million and 22 percent of revenues reported in 2000."

It's no wonder at all why the AMA tends to work with the govt. interest over it's members. Look at where it gets most of its money from. They'll throw talk about malpractice reform here and there just to throw a bone. But when it came time to using it to negotiate when it came to giving approval to the Obamacare bill they didn't. You know you're in trouble when even Congress thinks your lobbying group is incompetent: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39586.html

It's why now nearly all doctors operate through their medical specialty societies and their PACs. Derm has SkinPAC, Rads has RadPAC, RadOnc has ASTROPAC, etc.

Which makes @ravupadh's comment of, "for all the hate the AMA is getting in this thread, know that the ACA wouldn't have passed without the AMA's support," even that much funnier.

 

[Psai]

Yeah I was unimpressed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists making a nice new headquarters buildings for themselves. I'd like for my specialty society to focus on issues that matter to me like midlevel encroachment and crappy reimbursement from medicare, not central air for their new digs.

 

[DermViser]

Yeah I was unimpressed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists making a nice new headquarters buildings for themselves. I'd like for my specialty society to focus on issues that matter to me like midlevel encroachment and crappy reimbursement from medicare, not central air for their new digs.

You're kidding. They must be getting a lot in dues.

 

[Psai]

https://www.asahq.org/For-the-Publi...ologists-breaks-ground-on-new-Schaumburg.aspx

"The newly expanded Wood Library-Museum (WLM) of Anesthesiology will also reside in ASA’s new Schaumburg headquarters. The WLM will celebrate the story of the profession of anesthesiology using electronic media and graphics, and display devices and artifacts that will be creatively integrated throughout the building."
Instead of looking at the past they should focus on the future.

 

[DermViser]

https://www.asahq.org/For-the-Publi...ologists-breaks-ground-on-new-Schaumburg.aspx

"The newly expanded Wood Library-Museum (WLM) of Anesthesiology will also reside in ASA’s new Schaumburg headquarters. The WLM will celebrate the story of the profession of anesthesiology using electronic media and graphics, and display devices and artifacts that will be creatively integrated throughout the building."
Instead of looking at the past they should focus on the future.

WOW. Those anesthesiologists should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[caffeinemia]

I think I've found an exploitable trigger point for this derm fella. Hmm... lets see ...

Thank to the ACA, all derm emergencies will now be covered! Prescriptions for retin-A are what's actually driving up health care costs! Stress relief from having mandated insurance will decrease glabellar lines and reduce utilization of cosmetic botox thereby undercutting derm's income!

BOOYA! Come at me brah!

 

[DermViser]

I think I've found an exploitable trigger point for this derm fella. Hmm... lets see ...

Thank to the ACA, all derm emergencies will now be covered! Prescriptions for retin-A are what's actually driving up health care costs! Stress relief from having mandated insurance will decrease glabellar lines and reduce utilization of cosmetic botox thereby undercutting derm's income!

BOOYA! Come at me brah!

Try harder.

 

[caffeinemia]

Yo momma sooooooo fat she couldn't afford the deductible for the skin check of her pannus?