Interesting comments on our society

[Whetherby]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I found this interesting letter on the internet...I'm curious how others feel about it. I can say I've seen numerous examples similar to the patient he's describing throughout my training.



The following is a letter to the President written by a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner Jones:

Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

 

[BrainPathology]

I found this interesting letter on the internet...I'm curious how others feel about it. I can say I've seen numerous examples similar to the patient he's describing throughout my training.



The following is a letter to the President written by a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner Jones:

Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

Patients like that are one reason why pathology was such a natural choice for me. But they were the minority. They could ruin an entire day but really I ran across them once or twice a week. Besides, once you let them into the ER at all taxpayers are paying for their care in some way. Unless someone is proposing we refuse to treat them by having bouncers at the doors to ER's judge people's choices by their appearance - I'm not sure what you do.

Also, the doctor described someone who is immature.. not evil. I believe the best of us would be eager to take part in opportunities that may lead patients like these down a road to become better people. I woud hope that before sending off this letter the Dr took the opportunity to let the patient know that their choices were irresponsible and not good for her in the long run.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I found this interesting letter on the internet...I'm curious how others feel about it. I can say I've seen numerous examples similar to the patient he's describing throughout my training.

When pondering these situations I am reminded of the cursed ROC curve that generations of pathology residents have been tortured with.

In case you have not yet been indoctrinated through way of board studying, said curve is a graphical representation that helps pinpoint the optimal balance between a test's sensitivity and specificity. As we all know, high sensitivity tests usually suffer from lack of specificity, and vice versa. Hence the need for both screening and confirmatory testing metholologies.

With regard to our systems of social welfare we run into a similar conundrum. We can design systems that will completely exclude people who are undeserving of assistance, but they will over-exclude. Or we can design systems that will benefit the maximum number of people, but they will over-include. Collectively setting the threshold of "deserving" is where society wrestles with the issue.

Personally, I don't let this stuff bother me. Any system that distributes resources, be it to Wall Street or West Baltimore, will be partially subverted by parasites. Why act surprised when it happens?

 

[lipomas]

Medicaid funding is a state issue. Write to your governor.

😛

 

[icpshootyz]

When pondering these situations I am reminded of the cursed ROC curve that generations of pathology residents have been tortured with.

In case you have not yet been indoctrinated through way of board studying, said curve is a graphical representation that helps pinpoint the optimal balance between a test's sensitivity and specificity. As we all know, high sensitivity tests usually suffer from lack of specificity, and vice versa. Hence the need for both screening and confirmatory testing metholologies.

With regard to our systems of social welfare we run into a similar conundrum. We can design systems that will completely exclude people who are undeserving of assistance, but they will over-exclude. Or we can design systems that will benefit the maximum number of people, but they will over-include. Collectively setting the threshold of "deserving" is where society wrestles with the issue.

Personally, I don't let this stuff bother me. Any system that distributes resources, be it to Wall Street or West Baltimore, will be partially subverted by parasites. Why act surprised when it happens?

I agree, and in light of my very democratic state electing a republican to the U.S. Senate, I'm forced to reflect on these very same views. Yes, there will always be people who take advantage of programs like welfare or medicare or whatever for their own benefit, and at the expense of others who actually deserve it. But, by then villainizing the program you in turn villainize those who are truly in need, and you let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. When it comes to social welfare and my personal views on government and society I find a very simple phrase always keeps me grounded in my views:

"A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members"

 

[Thrombus]

"A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members"

Couldn't agree more. Thats why we should continue to take out the democratic party who feed off of the poor by keeping them down and giving them free handouts in order to retain their power. Nothing is further from kindness towards the poor.

Elect laissez faire minded folks who believe that individuals do a better job in enabling the folks in need to recover from their addictions by taking personal responsibility, working hard, and getting a hand up in the process through charity.

 

[pathstudent]

I agree, and in light of my very democratic state electing a republican to the U.S. Senate, I'm forced to reflect on these very same views. Yes, there will always be people who take advantage of programs like welfare or medicare or whatever for their own benefit, and at the expense of others who actually deserve it. But, by then villainizing the program you in turn villainize those who are truly in need, and you let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. When it comes to social welfare and my personal views on government and society I find a very simple phrase always keeps me grounded in my views:

"A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members"

What I find refreshing about this election is that it helps debunk the whole Blue State vs. Red State, Coastal Elite vs. Fly Over Country.

Mass had a republican governor and now a very conservative senator. They aren't so blue after all.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Couldn't agree more. Thats why we should continue to take out the democratic party who feed off of the poor by keeping them down and giving them free handouts in order to retain their power. Nothing is further from kindness towards the poor.

Elect laissez faire minded folks who believe that individuals do a better job in enabling the folks in need to recover from their addictions by taking personal responsibility, working hard, and getting a hand up in the process through charity.

To paraphrase an old saying: "Democrats think people are fundamentally stupid, Republicans think people are fundamentally lazy."

The simple truth is that some people are stupid and need guidance and assistance to be productive, and some people are lazy and need a kick in the arse to be productive. Actually, some people are both stupid and lazy, and will only produce carbon dioxide and manure no matter what is done.

Given this rich tapestry of humanity, it makes little sense to bash an opponents' one-size-fits-all approach while exalting another one-size-fits-all approach. Neither will work alone.

 

[Parts Unknown]

When it comes to social welfare and my personal views on government and society I find a very simple phrase always keeps me grounded in my views:

"A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members"

I prefer "Judge not, that ye not be judged." As I make my to work each morning, I can see how some of our many indigent patients might look at me and think that as a physician I am some wealthy, Ivy League, BMW-driving, private high school-attending, Cognac-sipping, caviar-munching, Masterpiece Theatre-watching embodiment of elitist yuppie scum. As I am a thoroughly broke product of multiple public school systems, who drives a sensible Japanese automobile, I understand the limited value of snap judgements.

 

[Whetherby]

I'm in favor of social programs, but they need to be monitored more closely. The example given in that letter is far from a rare occurence. Medicaid, welfare, etc. are necessary, but there is a serious danger of complacency for those who utilize them. The other problem is that people in that situation who are motivated enough to find work end up making just enough to disqualify themselves from these programs, so there's a major incentive to avoid working.

I'm sorry, but people who are living off government money should not be wasting that money on cigarettes, jewelry, eating at restaurants, etc., etc.

 

[Whetherby]

"A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members"

It's not an issue of whether our society should support the least of its members. Of course it should. The issue is about educating them on how best to utilize that support and incentivizing them to work towards supporting themselves.

 

[icpshootyz]

It's not an issue of whether our society should support the least of its members. Of course it should. The issue is about educating them on how best to utilize that support and incentivizing them to work towards supporting themselves.

I agree. But what you're proposing takes social welfare programs that provide education and support, which in turn require taxes to support those programs, which in turn are often government programs supported by the democratic party and opposed by the republican party, are they not? I feel like the "personal responsibility" argument always comes up, yet the people proposing everyone should have personal responsibility A) already have their own (like I do); but B) don't want to pay to instruct others how to develop theirs, which would require government-funded support, the antithesis of the republican party. And that's why I'd rather vote democrat even knowing that some bad apples are abusing public support because I still know that people who truly need that support are getting it. Throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't work.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I'm sorry, but people who are living off government money should not be wasting that money on cigarettes, jewelry, eating at restaurants, etc., etc.

That's the problem with freedom and liberty: it gives people the ability to do things I don't agree with.

 

[Whetherby]

I agree. But what you're proposing takes social welfare programs that provide education and support, which in turn require taxes to support those programs, which in turn are often government programs supported by the democratic party and opposed by the republican party, are they not? I feel like the "personal responsibility" argument always comes up, yet the people proposing everyone should have personal responsibility A) already have their own (like I do); but B) don't want to pay to instruct others how to develop theirs, which would require government-funded support, the antithesis of the republican party. And that's why I'd rather vote democrat even knowing that some bad apples are abusing public support because I still know that people who truly need that support are getting it. Throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't work.

I basically agree with you and I tend to vote democrat myself for that very reason (even though I sort of hate both sides for one reason or another...), but it really irks me to hear stories like this, along with the many similar examples I've seen personally.

I'm not against Medicaid/wellfare/etc. and I'm certainly not proposing that it be eliminated or anything like that, but I am against people who abuse it. Would it really be that expensive to educate the users of these systems about how to use their money wisely? Or to monitor their uses of money in some way and provide only for basic human needs rather than wasteful luxuries? I would think the savings on the other end would more than pay for the cost of such an education and monitoring program...although I obviously have not exactly worked out the numbers.

People on this forum (and people in general) seem to think that everything has to be black or white. You have to be either completely for something or completely against it, completely Republican or completely Democrat, etc. This makes no sense to me. I can oppose certain parts of a system without completely opposing the system itself. Social support systems are good, but when they allow for widespread abuses and incentivize laziness that's not so good.

 

[Pingu]

That's the problem with freedom and liberty: it gives people the ability to do things I don't agree with.

I have no problem with people doing things I don't agree with as long as it is A: legal and B: Not using fradulently tax dollars to do so.

I'm sorry, but people who are living off government money should not be wasting that money on cigarettes, jewelry, eating at restaurants, etc., etc.

Nor should food stamps be able to be used to purchase soda, candy, ice cream, or junk food. But you can purchase any food item in the store with food stamps. You can't get things like shampoo or deodorant, but items with zero nutritional value are totally covered.

As someone who recently gave up her parental paid credit card, I can honestly say that you are definitely more responsible spending the money you earn yourself than you are spending money that you did not earn.

 

[dwil75]

To paraphrase an old saying: "Democrats think people are fundamentally stupid, Republicans think people are fundamentally lazy."

The simple truth is that some people are stupid and need guidance and assistance to be productive, and some people are lazy and need a kick in the arse to be productive. Actually, some people are both stupid and lazy, and will only produce carbon dioxide and manure no matter what is done.

Given this rich tapestry of humanity, it makes little sense to bash an opponents' one-size-fits-all approach while exalting another one-size-fits-all approach. Neither will work alone.

Well stated. 👍