May 16, 2018
26
15
11
Status
Medical Student
Was looking through old threads and found several back in 2016 regarding Sander's plan and how he was never going to win the primary and all that. Well now here we are again, and even if Sanders doesn't win, the whole party has shifted significantly more left to the point that his ideas from several years ago are no longer considered extreme or "alt-left". I know there are other threads talking about single payer systems, but I'm interested in this Medicare For All proposal that the leading 4 or 5 democratic candidates are endorsing and how it will affect physicians in general as well as EM. I'm sure it's still taboo to talk about how it affects our income, but I am concerned as I'm about to start residency in 2 months and have a good amount of debt between myself and my partner. I have posted before on the topic, but now have a specific article written by the man who led the project analyzing Sanders' plan and his actual discussion of it without any partisan bias. Link below.


How Much Would Medicare for All Cut Doctor and Hospital Reimbursements?
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
This has been discussed frequently, and ALWAYS ends up in partisan fights.

That being said, Medicare-for-all, meaning "Medicare rates" paid to all physicians and hospitals would result in the near immediate closure of many hospitals in the U.S. and Emergency departments. It's doubtful the government could increase rates to be higher than Medicare, because that would eliminate most of the "cost savings" and thus the basic justification for this plan.

At my hospital where approximately 40-50% of patients have private insurance, it would mean an almost 30% immediate pay decrease for EP physicians. Your mileage may vary depending on geographic location and payor mix.
 

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
Exactly. Of course they are going to promise universal health care. However, when it comes time for such legislation, we'll see if they actually believe in this stuff, or if they are just playing their constituency. We saw this with Obamacare. What was a promise for affordable coverage for all ended up in being a bailout of insurance companies (mandating everyone have insurance) and in many states, insurance costs went way up.

The chances of the Democrats being able to unilaterally enact a complete takeover of the healthcare system by having everyone have the option for medicare (YEAH its cheaper), thereby bankrupting the entire system (UHHH OHHHH there's not hospitals anymore) just seems crazy unlikely. The Democrats had to bribe their members to get enough votes for Obamacare, and it wasn't anything close to as transformative of a law as a Medicare for all would be. I just can't believe any of the members of congress having the guts to actually enact a system like this, because the second hospitals started closing, their careers would be over. The public relations outrage towards them would be immense. When it comes time to actually enacting this, we'll see which politicians ACTUALLY believe in it, and which ones are just using the promise of socialized healthcare to get elected, without any intention of actually doing it.
 

Birdstrike

7+ Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
4,899
3,864
181
Status
Was looking through old threads and found several back in 2016 regarding Sander's plan and how he was never going to win the primary and all that. Well now here we are again, and even if Sanders doesn't win, the whole party has shifted significantly more left to the point that his ideas from several years ago are no longer considered extreme or "alt-left". I know there are other threads talking about single payer systems, but I'm interested in this Medicare For All proposal that the leading 4 or 5 democratic candidates are endorsing and how it will affect physicians in general as well as EM. I'm sure it's still taboo to talk about how it affects our income, but I am concerned as I'm about to start residency in 2 months and have a good amount of debt between myself and my partner. I have posted before on the topic, but now have a specific article written by the man who led the project analyzing Sanders' plan and his actual discussion of it without any partisan bias. Link below.


How Much Would Medicare for All Cut Doctor and Hospital Reimbursements?
Socialism in all forms, is terrible, terrible, terrible for doctors. It’s even worse for the poor. (Unless you like eating zoo animals, like in socialist Venezuela). When you hear someone proposing it, your should reject it out of hand, as if you were offered a Measles-n-MRSA ham sandwich.
 
May 16, 2018
26
15
11
Status
Medical Student
Perfect. Just read the other thread regarding HR 861. I don’t mean to sound dramatic, but when I was accepted to med school, I thought I was joining a respected profession with an all but guarantee for a better life for myself and family. Between the near constant complaints from people have about our healthcare system being the worst and most expensive in the world, the extreme distrust people have in physicians thinking they are greedy and narcissistic, midlevel creep, and now more laws and legislation cutting our reimbursement to give it to whoever “they” decide is most worthy that week (unemployed, insurance execs, whatever), it just feels like the floor gave out from under me. I feel cheated. I was really excited a few weeks ago at match day, but now it feels like I’m walking into a nightmare. Sorry for the thought dump. Don’t really know what to think or do at this point other than put one foot in front of the other and keep working hard-I can still make myself the best physician I can be in spite of everything else. Thanks for listening.
 

namethatsmell

7+ Year Member
Sep 16, 2010
680
593
181
Perfect. Just read the other thread regarding HR 861. I don’t mean to sound dramatic, but when I was accepted to med school, I thought I was joining a respected profession with an all but guarantee for a better life for myself and family. Between the near constant complaints from people have about our healthcare system being the worst and most expensive in the world, the extreme distrust people have in physicians thinking they are greedy and narcissistic, midlevel creep, and now more laws and legislation cutting our reimbursement to give it to whoever “they” decide is most worthy that week (unemployed, insurance execs, whatever), it just feels like the floor gave out from under me. I feel cheated. I was really excited a few weeks ago at match day, but now it feels like I’m walking into a nightmare. Sorry for the thought dump. Don’t really know what to think or do at this point other than put one foot in front of the other and keep working hard-I can still make myself the best physician I can be in spite of everything else. Thanks for listening.
So here's the sort-of good news...medicine as a whole has been under attack by various forces since you (and I) were born. Yet here it still stands. The guys who worked in the pit 20 years ago would say we have to deal with way more crap than them and they're probably right. But the stuff we deal with is different and in some ways not as troubling for us as for them (ie most of us can use an EMR as painful as they can be). At the same time, we still do more good for people on a daily basis than most other professions. You *can* still create a good professional life if you actively work at it. Here are some things to consider:

1) Don't expect a great job to be handed to you. You need to figure out what's most important to you (salary, schedule, staffing, location etc) and then not compromise on those things. If you can't find a job that gives you what you need you have to either look elsewhere, move, locums, or consider putting together a few part-time jobs to give you enough salary. Never take the first offer. You may not get what you want but you have to try. Read a good book on negotiating and it will pay for itself many times over.

2) Make paying off your loans your 1st - billionth priority after residency. Having the financial freedom to walk away from any job (or medicine altogether) is about the smartest thing you can do for your personal and professional well-being. Along the way max out all tax-advantaged space and employer matches and save like you want to retire in 10-20 years.

4) EM:medicine is like NFL: pro sports...the work is more taxing and the workspan is shorter when compared to our colleagues. Within your first few years of attendinghood, create make a plan to ensure actual work-life balance so you don't completely burn out. For most of us this does not mean going to a resilience course or mediating but rather finding a way to tweak one's schedule or trim work hours. Along similar lines, begin to form some exit plans for non-EM or non-clinical work should you feel the need to leave the field.

4) Remember the medicine of our field is still neat and once in awhile you will save somebody's life. That's rather cool.

5) Now for the single most important rule: Nobody will look out for your interests better than you. Don't be another passive sheep doctor. Practice standing up for yourself early in your career or you will simply set the stage to be walked all over throughout your career. Whether it's about scheduling, staffing, salary, mid-level stuff, whatever, you need to make sure you're not being quietly made to do things you think equate to bad medicine or compromise your values or sense of self-worth...otherwise the burnout and resentment will blossom. And you don't have to be a jerk to stand up for yourself, nor does standing up for yourself make you a jerk.

While it may sound odd, it's great that you're concerned about these issues. If we don't actively acknowledge problems we'll never grow enough to address them or adapt our lives as necessary. Along they way we realize which battles to pick and which ones to let go. I suspect you'll be OK. Good luck.
 
May 16, 2018
26
15
11
Status
Medical Student
So here's the sort-of good news...medicine as a whole has been under attack by various forces since you (and I) were born. Yet here it still stands. The guys who worked in the pit 20 years ago would say we have to deal with way more crap than them and they're probably right. But the stuff we deal with is different and in some ways not as troubling for us as for them (ie most of us can use an EMR as painful as they can be). At the same time, we still do more good for people on a daily basis than most other professions. You *can* still create a good professional life if you actively work at it. Here are some things to consider:

1) Don't expect a great job to be handed to you. You need to figure out what's most important to you (salary, schedule, staffing, location etc) and then not compromise on those things. If you can't find a job that gives you what you need you have to either look elsewhere, move, locums, or consider putting together a few part-time jobs to give you enough salary. Never take the first offer. You may not get what you want but you have to try. Read a good book on negotiating and it will pay for itself many times over.

2) Make paying off your loans your 1st - billionth priority after residency. Having the financial freedom to walk away from any job (or medicine altogether) is about the smartest thing you can do for your personal and professional well-being. Along the way max out all tax-advantaged space and employer matches and save like you want to retire in 10-20 years.

4) EM:medicine is like NFL: pro sports...the work is more taxing and the workspan is shorter when compared to our colleagues. Within your first few years of attendinghood, create make a plan to ensure actual work-life balance so you don't completely burn out. For most of us this does not mean going to a resilience course or mediating but rather finding a way to tweak one's schedule or trim work hours. Along similar lines, begin to form some exit plans for non-EM or non-clinical work should you feel the need to leave the field.

4) Remember the medicine of our field is still neat and once in awhile you will save somebody's life. That's rather cool.

5) Now for the single most important rule: Nobody will look out for your interests better than you. Don't be another passive sheep doctor. Practice standing up for yourself early in your career or you will simply set the stage to be walked all over throughout your career. Whether it's about scheduling, staffing, salary, mid-level stuff, whatever, you need to make sure you're not being quietly made to do things you think equate to bad medicine or compromise your values or sense of self-worth...otherwise the burnout and resentment will blossom. And you don't have to be a jerk to stand up for yourself, nor does standing up for yourself make you a jerk.

While it may sound odd, it's great that you're concerned about these issues. If we don't actively acknowledge problems we'll never grow enough to address them or adapt our lives as necessary. Along they way we realize which battles to pick and which ones to let go. I suspect you'll be OK. Good luck.
I really appreciate the kind words. I definitely plan on hitting my (and SO's) student loans hard to knock them out in a couple of years after residency. I totally understand that no one will look out for my own interests better than me, but it's still nice to know there are people in our field who are still looking out for each other. Thanks again
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
Socialism in all forms, is terrible, terrible, terrible for doctors. It’s even worse for the poor. (Unless you like eating zoo animals, like in socialist Venezuela). When you hear someone proposing it, your should reject it out of hand, as if you were offered a Measles-n-MRSA ham sandwich.
No but you see Venezuela didn't practice TRUE socialism. This time we can get it right! Plus.....Climate Change!!!
 

BoardingDoc

Don't worry. I've got my towel.
7+ Year Member
Feb 23, 2010
1,146
1,632
181
Status
Attending Physician
No but you see Venezuela didn't practice TRUE socialism. This time we can get it right! Plus.....Climate Change!!!
I have no issue with the first part of your post, but as for the second... are you suggesting that you don't believe that climate change is real?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WilcoWorld

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
So here's the sort-of good news...medicine as a whole has been under attack by various forces since you (and I) were born. Yet here it still stands. The guys who worked in the pit 20 years ago would say we have to deal with way more crap than them and they're probably right. But the stuff we deal with is different and in some ways not as troubling for us as for them (ie most of us can use an EMR as painful as they can be). At the same time, we still do more good for people on a daily basis than most other professions. You *can* still create a good professional life if you actively work at it. Here are some things to consider:

1) Don't expect a great job to be handed to you. You need to figure out what's most important to you (salary, schedule, staffing, location etc) and then not compromise on those things. If you can't find a job that gives you what you need you have to either look elsewhere, move, locums, or consider putting together a few part-time jobs to give you enough salary. Never take the first offer. You may not get what you want but you have to try. Read a good book on negotiating and it will pay for itself many times over.

2) Make paying off your loans your 1st - billionth priority after residency. Having the financial freedom to walk away from any job (or medicine altogether) is about the smartest thing you can do for your personal and professional well-being. Along the way max out all tax-advantaged space and employer matches and save like you want to retire in 10-20 years.

4) EM:medicine is like NFL: pro sports...the work is more taxing and the workspan is shorter when compared to our colleagues. Within your first few years of attendinghood, create make a plan to ensure actual work-life balance so you don't completely burn out. For most of us this does not mean going to a resilience course or mediating but rather finding a way to tweak one's schedule or trim work hours. Along similar lines, begin to form some exit plans for non-EM or non-clinical work should you feel the need to leave the field.

4) Remember the medicine of our field is still neat and once in awhile you will save somebody's life. That's rather cool.

5) Now for the single most important rule: Nobody will look out for your interests better than you. Don't be another passive sheep doctor. Practice standing up for yourself early in your career or you will simply set the stage to be walked all over throughout your career. Whether it's about scheduling, staffing, salary, mid-level stuff, whatever, you need to make sure you're not being quietly made to do things you think equate to bad medicine or compromise your values or sense of self-worth...otherwise the burnout and resentment will blossom. And you don't have to be a jerk to stand up for yourself, nor does standing up for yourself make you a jerk.

While it may sound odd, it's great that you're concerned about these issues. If we don't actively acknowledge problems we'll never grow enough to address them or adapt our lives as necessary. Along they way we realize which battles to pick and which ones to let go. I suspect you'll be OK. Good luck.
All star post right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scribe4Life
Feb 9, 2019
14
5
11
I have no issue with the first part of your post, but as for the second... are you suggesting that you don't believe that climate change is real?
It’s real. The climate is always changing.

However, the contribution of industrial society via CO2 is relatively small. Still, socialists love to overstate the problem to justify their ideas. The Green New Deal is a prime example of climate change being used to drive socialists and redistributionist policies.
 
Mar 3, 2019
20
14
11
Status
Medical Student
I have no issue with the first part of your post, but as for the second... are you suggesting that you don't believe that climate change is real?
I think it's safe to say that just about everyone believes in the following 2 statements:

1) The climate has always and will always change
2) The climate is affected by an infinite number of factors, among which are volcanoes, elk farts, solar fluctuations, humans, meteorites, ants, and so on.

If I say I believe in the above 2 statements, do I "believe" in Climate Change according to the ruling zeitgeist? No, in order to truly "believe" I also have to accept the following tenets of the climate change agenda and the elites using it to try and grab ever more power for themselves:

1) I have to BELIEVE that "people smarter than me" have figured out to what extent human activity is contributing to the climate relative to all the other infinite factors that have shaped the climate for billions of years.

2) I have to dismiss the countless failed predictions and scandals emanating from the scientific priesthood and accept that as of the "current year," "the science is settled."

3) And first and foremost, I have to be willing to surrender control of virtually every facet of modern life that revolves around energy usage (ie everything) to "people who know better" so that these people can "save the planet." If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells me that I can no longer use internal combustion engines and that my farts will now be taxed for the Benefit of the Revolutio-err, I mean to Save the Planet-then I must do it unquestioningly else risk being viewed as a no-good heretic who wants to condemn humanity's children to greenhouse gas fueled hellfire.

So let's be real here. The inane questioning of people's belief in climate change is nothing more than a program for hammering subservience to the ruling class. It used to be obey us because god wills it, now it's obey us or NYC will be underwater by 2015. :bullcrap:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pmlmu13

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
3) And first and foremost, I have to be willing to surrender control of virtually every facet of modern life that revolves around energy usage (ie everything) to "people who know better" so that these people can "save the planet.
This is my issue with climate change legislation. I accept there is a changing climate, and I accept that people who are far more knowledgeable than me believe we humans are causing it, though climate scientists don't exactly have the best track record. What I can not accept is dramatically changing our current way of life and paying enormous taxes when its not going to likely to make a dent in the problem anyways. All this does is make people feel better about themselves because they are doing something for the climate, but the reality is that even if the US became the most energy efficient country in the world, it wouldn't make any difference in GLOBAL climate change.

There's four scenarios:

1. Catastrophic climate change exists, we do nothing as a country, and eventually life as we know it becomes unlivable
2. Catastrophic climate change exists, we pass draconian US laws to combat it that don't make any difference, life sucks while we are still alive thanks to said laws, and eventually life as we know it still becomes unlivable thanks to climate change
3. Catastrophic climate change doesn't exist, we do nothing, and life stays the same as the climate continues to change over time without a catastrophic outcome
4. Catastrophic climate change doesn't exist, we pass draconian US laws to combat something that doesn't exist, the climate continues to change over time without a catastrophic outcome, however the legislation makes all of our lives much worse

So the way I see it, there are 3 negative outcomes. If catastrophic climate change really exists, we are screwed no matter what we do, so we may as well enjoy life while it exists. But if catastrophic climate change doesn't exist, we are only screwed if we pass terrible legislation.

The smart play is, do nothing, and hope the climate change we have isn't going to lead to some catastrophic outcome but rather is just part of a natural cycle of change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmlmu13

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
The smart play is, do nothing, and hope the climate change we have isn't going to lead to some catastrophic outcome but rather is just part of a natural cycle of change.
Don't you see though.....we have to do SOMETHING! Even if China and India continue to accelerate their carbon emissions, it's important that we make a gesture, and give our lives and economic freedom over to centrally-planned socialism.
 

BoardingDoc

Don't worry. I've got my towel.
7+ Year Member
Feb 23, 2010
1,146
1,632
181
Status
Attending Physician
These responses are interesting. It unfortunately seems that the issue of climate change is inexorably linked to politics in many people's minds. As such, I can't tell how much of these responses are driven by personal interpretation of the available data and how much is driven by anger towards liberal politics.

For the sake of throwing my hat in the ring: I personally agree that we aren't going to tax our way out of a global catastrophe, and that the fact that it is a global issue makes it a far more complicated one than laws passed or actions taken at the individual country level can solve. That said, I feel like a lot of people entirely dismiss the idea of climate change simply because it isn't perfectly understood at this point and there isn't currently a viable solution. My response to that situation is that we should continue to research the problem and propose solutions, not to dismiss the entire endeavor.
 

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
These responses are interesting. It unfortunately seems that the issue of climate change is inexorably linked to politics in many people's minds. As such, I can't tell how much of these responses are driven by personal interpretation of the available data and how much is driven by anger towards liberal politics.

For the sake of throwing my hat in the ring: I personally agree that we aren't going to tax our way out of a global catastrophe, and that the fact that it is a global issue makes it a far more complicated one than laws passed or actions taken at the individual country level can solve. That said, I feel like a lot of people entirely dismiss the idea of climate change simply because it isn't perfectly understood at this point and there isn't currently a viable solution. My response to that situation is that we should continue to research the problem and propose solutions, not to dismiss the entire endeavor.
Totally agree. It shouldnt be a political issue, but I feel like it has from both sides of the political system. If the best scientist in the world said we are all going to die in 50 years if we don’t act, the solution X, and if we do X, the entire thing is preventable, and the whole world did X, then I think it would be silly not to accept X as a solution.

The problem is, we don’t have a global solution, and dont know exactly what the endpoint of this is. So completely changing your way of life and your economic system seems a bit drastic if it doesn’t even put a Band-Aid on the situation.

Im more of a political agnostic. Ill follow any plan if theres solid proof it works, regardless of who proposes it. I equally hate both parties.
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
Totally agree. It shouldnt be a political issue, but I feel like it has from both sides of the political system. If the best scientist in the world said we are all going to die in 50 years if we don’t act, the solution X, and if we do X, the entire thing is preventable, and the whole world did X, then I think it would be silly not to accept X as a solution.
The issue for a lot of us is that "the best scientists" have been predicting our demise from various different entities for decades, and their predictions never come true. It was "Global Cooling" in the 70's, and they estimated that within 20 years we'd enter into a new ice age. Then in the 80's it was the ozone layer, and we were all going to cook to death. Subsequently in the 90's it became "Global Warming" culminating in Al Gore's prediction that by 2017 entire American cities would be swallowed up by the ocean. This has subsequently morphed into "Climate Change" which now blames every weather occurrence like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, snow storms, and even colder weather on human activity. The cure for ALL of these claims in the past has been of course completely turning out lives over to politicians who will fix the problem for us if only we just give them massive taxes, and revert to an agrarian style of living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boatswain2PA

Apollyon

Screw the GST
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Nov 24, 2002
19,914
4,624
381
SCREW IT!
The issue for a lot of us is that "the best scientists" have been predicting our demise from various different entities for decades, and their predictions never come true. It was "Global Cooling" in the 70's, and they estimated that within 20 years we'd enter into a new ice age. Then in the 80's it was the ozone layer, and we were all going to cook to death. Subsequently in the 90's it became "Global Warming" culminating in Al Gore's prediction that by 2017 entire American cities would be swallowed up by the ocean. This has subsequently morphed into "Climate Change" which now blames every weather occurrence like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, snow storms, and even colder weather on human activity. The cure for ALL of these claims in the past has been of course completely turning out lives over to politicians who will fix the problem for us if only we just give them massive taxes, and revert to an agrarian style of living.
That didn't work in Cambodia. But, wait! This time, it's different!!
 
Feb 9, 2019
14
5
11
These responses are interesting. It unfortunately seems that the issue of climate change is inexorably linked to politics in many people's minds. As such, I can't tell how much of these responses are driven by personal interpretation of the available data and how much is driven by anger towards liberal politics.

For the sake of throwing my hat in the ring: I personally agree that we aren't going to tax our way out of a global catastrophe, and that the fact that it is a global issue makes it a far more complicated one than laws passed or actions taken at the individual country level can solve. That said, I feel like a lot of people entirely dismiss the idea of climate change simply because it isn't perfectly understood at this point and there isn't currently a viable solution. My response to that situation is that we should continue to research the problem and propose solutions, not to dismiss the entire endeavor.
I don’t think that anyone on this forum is dismissing research that improves our environment. What were are dismissing are the proposed solutions that will either collapse our economy such as the Green New Deal or put America at a competitive disadvantage such as the Paris Accord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmlmu13

enalli

2+ Year Member
May 15, 2016
244
302
81
Status
Attending Physician
This is my issue with climate change legislation. I accept there is a changing climate, and I accept that people who are far more knowledgeable than me believe we humans are causing it, though climate scientists don't exactly have the best track record. What I can not accept is dramatically changing our current way of life and paying enormous taxes when its not going to likely to make a dent in the problem anyways. All this does is make people feel better about themselves because they are doing something for the climate, but the reality is that even if the US became the most energy efficient country in the world, it wouldn't make any difference in GLOBAL climate change.
Someone's gotta start it, no? This is kinda like voting. No single person's vote is important, so you taking the election off doesn't matter. But if everyone acted on that thought, then Democracy would collapse.
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
Someone's gotta start it, no? This is kinda like voting. No single person's vote is important, so you taking the election off doesn't matter. But if everyone thought that way then Democracy would collapse.
The country who "starts it" will be at an economic disadvantage. The only way the entire world could get to a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be to enact policies which cause economic contraction, and increase poverty. Both of those are political suicide for any party who did it.

Technology isn't going to save us. We are already at nearly maximum theoretical efficiency for both solar panels and wind turbines. The technology can get cheaper but not much more efficient. The obvious problem then becomes energy storage. What most people don't realize is that the carbon footprint for mining the tons of rare metals (mostly in China) that make up solar panels and battery storage almost negates any benefit from eliminating fossil fuels, not to mention the environmental destruction.

The politicians know that it is impossible to curb emissions significantly, barring a massive population reduction or reduction in standard of living. Why then do they pursue this? It comes down to money. Most of the Cap & Trade plans involve the adoption of Carbon Shares, which companies would need to get in order to legally do business. Politically favored individuals and companies would get more Carbon Shares, and unpopular ones would get fewer. For commerce to continue, companies would have to exchange Carbon Shares. This exchange would of course be done through private companies which would "facilitate" the transactions for a fee, not to mention the government taxes. People like Al Gore want this "Climate Revolution" because they have positioned themselves to make a pile of money off of the new industries that will spring up to regulate the new Green Economy. Additionally it gives politicians the ability to pick winners and losers. A company that is generous with their ,lobbying donations to the Democratic party will certainly be gifted more Carbon Shares.
 

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
Someone's gotta start it, no? This is kinda like voting. No single person's vote is important, so you taking the election off doesn't matter. But if everyone acted on that thought, then Democracy would collapse.
You don't start something just to start something. You start something if it will make a difference. Otherwise, why don't you start taking rivaroxaban right now to prevent a stroke in the future. I mean, strokes are bad, right? Because there's no proof that taking rivaroxaban in a healthy individual without atrial fibrillation is any benefit in preventing stroke. You'd be assuming the 1% risk of major bleeding without any benefit. Same with climate change legislation. If it's not going to benefit, you don't risk the economic devastation just to "do something".
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247 and pmlmu13

emergentmd

10+ Year Member
Jul 6, 2008
1,354
1,443
281
Status
Attending Physician
Climate Change

1. When the year is hotter than average - You see how CO2 has increased the temperature around the world?
2. When the year is colder than average - You see how Co2 has has changed out weather pattern, watch out it will be hotter next year.
3. When it is drier than average - You see how CO2 has decreased the rainfall
4. When it is wetter than average - You see how Co2 has changed our weather pattern? Look at all of the hurricanes.
5. When the ice caps shrinks - See CO2 problems
6. When the ice cap grows - See what happens with all the CO2.
7. More tornados? - Climate change
8. More earthquakes? - Climate change
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247

WilcoWorld

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 2, 2004
2,998
1,720
281
Status
The evidence is clear that man-made factors are changing our climate in ways that are significantly likely to cause economic harm and increase human suffering. If you deny this, you are being willfully ignorant.

That said, there is plenty of debate to be had on the best ways to handle this challenge. If you don't like the Green New Deal, then propose an alternative (personally - I am not clear on what the GND is, right now it strikes me as a vacuous buzz term). But a critique of a policy is not a refutation of the motivation behind that policy.

I see the needs to reduce carbon emissions, to implement renewable energy sources, and to prevent contamination of our water sources as a HUGE opportunity for economic growth. Resource extraction and manual labor are outdated sources of US employment whereas technological innovation and skilled manufacturing could fuel our economy for decades to come. There is nothing infinite on this world, but the human capacity for innovation is boundless and our best hope for a good future.

I would like to see 1 - less government subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry and 2 - more support for innovations in alternative energy methods.
 
Last edited:

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
The evidence is clear that man-made factors are changing our climate in ways that are significantly likely to cause economic harm and increase human suffering. If you deny this, you are being willfully ignorant.
Is this a sure enough bet in order to cause economic hardship, worsening poverty, and joblessness? That's what it will do. You can't have it both ways, and have elimination of the "carbon economy" with economic growth. There is no energy source in the world as cheap and plentiful as fossil fuels. Somehow you are going to need to convince China and India to halt their economic expansion, and prevent increases in living standards of their people. I highly doubt that is achievable in any of the Green Alternate Realities.
 

WilcoWorld

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 2, 2004
2,998
1,720
281
Status
Is this a sure enough bet in order to cause economic hardship, worsening poverty, and joblessness? That's what it will do. You can't have it both ways, and have elimination of the "carbon economy" with economic growth. There is no energy source in the world as cheap and plentiful as fossil fuels. Somehow you are going to need to convince China and India to halt their economic expansion, and prevent increases in living standards of their people. I highly doubt that is achievable in any of the Green Alternate Realities.
Don't take my word for it (but perhaps take take economic advisors to Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush & George W. Bush words' for it):

Top economists of both parties endorse carbon tax and dividend to fight climate change (Washington Examiner)

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action (Wall Street Journal)
 
Last edited:

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
19,134
23,003
281
Status
Attending Physician
Don't take my word for it (but perhaps take take Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke's word for it):

Top economists of both parties endorse carbon tax and dividend to fight climate change (Washington Examiner)

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action (Wall Street Journal)
Umm, none of those presidents actually said that. Ford in particular has been dead for 13 years.

I think what you meant to say is that economic advisers TO Ford, Reagan, Bush....

The more than 40 signatories to the statement include the top economic advisers to Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
Don't take my word for it (but perhaps take take economic advisors to Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush & George W. Bush words' for it):

Top economists of both parties endorse carbon tax and dividend to fight climate change (Washington Examiner)

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action (Wall Street Journal)

Again, regardless of who said it, is it worth destroying our way of life, having much higher taxes, and potentially going to war over this issue?
 
Feb 9, 2019
14
5
11
The evidence is clear that man-made factors are changing our climate in ways that are significantly likely to cause economic harm and increase human suffering. If you deny this, you are being willfully ignorant.

That said, there is plenty of debate to be had on the best ways to handle this challenge. If you don't like the Green New Deal, then propose an alternative (personally - I am not clear on what the GND is, right now it strikes me as a vacuous buzz term). But a critique of a policy is not a refutation of the motivation behind that policy.

I see the needs to reduce carbon emissions, to implement renewable energy sources, and to prevent contamination of our water sources as a HUGE opportunity for economic growth. Resource extraction and manual labor are outdated sources of US employment whereas technological innovation and skilled manufacturing could fuel our economy for decades to come. There is nothing infinite on this world, but the human capacity for innovation is boundless and our best hope for a good future.

I would like to see 1 - less government subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry and 2 - more support for innovations in alternative energy methods.
This sounds suspiciously like, “Some experts told me to do it, so it must be a good idea” logic. Never mind the fact that no evidence is provided that a carbon tax (or any other climate change legislation) would make a difference in actual temperatures, and no analysis of the unintended economic consequences is offered.

An analogous situation that should be familiar to all of us is the recent Surviving Sepsis recommendations. A group of experts got together to recommend that we somehow implement the 3 and 6-hour CMS sepsis core measures within an hour of presentation. They offered little direct evidence of benefit and no serious consideration of the unintended harm caused by pervasive over-triage that would result. However, I suppose that we should throw caution to the wind a give it a try because the experts said so, right?
 

sb247

Doer of things
5+ Year Member
Jul 5, 2012
19,494
28,697
131
Galt's Gulch
I have no issue with the first part of your post, but as for the second... are you suggesting that you don't believe that climate change is real?
I do not believe we at all have been given reliable predictions of what will happen with climate moving forward, how much we impact that as humans, or reasonable reactions to the guesses of the first two things I mentioned.
 

sb247

Doer of things
5+ Year Member
Jul 5, 2012
19,494
28,697
131
Galt's Gulch
The evidence is clear that man-made factors are changing our climate in ways that are significantly likely to cause economic harm and increase human suffering. If you deny this, you are being willfully ignorant.

That said, there is plenty of debate to be had on the best ways to handle this challenge. If you don't like the Green New Deal, then propose an alternative (personally - I am not clear on what the GND is, right now it strikes me as a vacuous buzz term). But a critique of a policy is not a refutation of the motivation behind that policy.

I see the needs to reduce carbon emissions, to implement renewable energy sources, and to prevent contamination of our water sources as a HUGE opportunity for economic growth. Resource extraction and manual labor are outdated sources of US employment whereas technological innovation and skilled manufacturing could fuel our economy for decades to come. There is nothing infinite on this world, but the human capacity for innovation is boundless and our best hope for a good future.

I would like to see 1 - less government subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry and 2 - more support for innovations in alternative energy methods.
or just not subsidize any of it and everyone who wants to use renewable/green materials can go ahead and buy that off the private market
 

enalli

2+ Year Member
May 15, 2016
244
302
81
Status
Attending Physician
You don't start something just to start something. You start something if it will make a difference.
Of course. But this is something that scientists say will make a difference. If your point is more along the lines of "I don't trust this field of science" (like others on this thread), then, yes, you have given yourself an intellectual blank check to believe and do whatever you want.
 

sb247

Doer of things
5+ Year Member
Jul 5, 2012
19,494
28,697
131
Galt's Gulch
Of course. But this is something that scientists say will make a difference. If your point is more along the lines of "I don't trust this field of science" (like others on this thread), then, yes, you have given yourself an intellectual blank check to believe and do whatever you want.
I find the track record of accuracy and consistency of many in this field to be far too poor to be the basis of economic policy
 

emergentmd

10+ Year Member
Jul 6, 2008
1,354
1,443
281
Status
Attending Physician
Someone's gotta start it, no? This is kinda like voting. No single person's vote is important, so you taking the election off doesn't matter. But if everyone acted on that thought, then Democracy would collapse.
Letting one homeless person into your extra bedroom and giving them room and board would end homelessness. We all know this for a fact that every home taking one person off the streets would end homelessness. No one will argue with this without the need to raise taxes.

Will you be willing to be the first to take someone off the streets?

Typical Nimbyism
 

gamerEMdoc

Associate PD; EM Clerkship Director
Gold Donor
2+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2016
1,792
3,271
81
Status
Attending Physician
Of course. But this is something that scientists say will make a difference. If your point is more along the lines of "I don't trust this field of science" (like others on this thread), then, yes, you have given yourself an intellectual blank check to believe and do whatever you want.
Scientists at the IPCC have said we need worldwide draconian measures to basically reorganize our society worldwide to make a legit difference to curb warming to the 1.5 C goal. They have said that agreements like the Kyoto protocol, and now the Paris agreement, don't make enough difference, and this was assuming the US and China actually abided by these goals, which they don't. The IPCC has said they don't believe the worlds nations will be able to agree to enough change to actually make a difference. They believe its possible to reverse global climate change with drastic measures, but don't believe anyone is willing to take them.

I just don't see the point on agreeing to legislation that will have enormous economic impact, if scientists are saying it isn't enough to do anything of meaning. Climate change legislation just reeks of "lets do something to do something" when scientists are saying its not enough and we are quickly getting to the point of inevitability. To me, it just makes more sense to gamble on them being wrong than to change our entire way of life to make little to no difference on their inevitable outcome if they are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247

emergentmd

10+ Year Member
Jul 6, 2008
1,354
1,443
281
Status
Attending Physician
Q: Is global warming real and a threat?
A: Yes, just like dumping sewage into the ocean is

Q: Is there a proven method on how to fix GW?
A: NO

Q: Even if there were scientific evidence that GW can be fixed by decreased CO2 emission, if the US went along with this would it fix GW?
A: NO as we have a minority contribution

Q: Would the US be at a disadvantage by wasting 20% of our GDP vs China/India who does not abide by GW Fixes?
A: YES

Take your neighborhood park that has a trash problem. If your house decides to go every weekend to pick up all the trash which has been proven to fix this issue, how long will you waste 20% of your home GDP to help your park?

To make this more comparable. If you go every weekend and find after 6 months that you have decreased the amount of waste by 15%, how long will you continue to waste 20% of your household GDP while the rest of your neighbors continue to produce waste?

This is your answer and I am sick and tired of GW being used as a political issue. Trust me, the libs care more about winning than fixing anything. Even they have to be able to understand that no matter what the US does, it will not change anything and only cost us a large chunk of our GDP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
This is your answer and I am sick and tired of GW being used as a political issue. Trust me, the libs care more about winning than fixing anything. Even they have to be able to understand that no matter what the US does, it will not change anything and only cost us a large chunk of our GDP.
It's not just about winning. It's an excuse to grab more power. It's justification for realizing all of their dreams of total control over the economy, and it's power they can wield to control people. This is ultimately the Left Wing's goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247

enalli

2+ Year Member
May 15, 2016
244
302
81
Status
Attending Physician
Letting one homeless person into your extra bedroom and giving them room and board would end homelessness. We all know this for a fact that every home taking one person off the streets would end homelessness. No one will argue with this without the need to raise taxes.

Will you be willing to be the first to take someone off the streets?

Typical Nimbyism
NIMBY is a cool acronym to throw around, but I don't see how it applies here.

The NIMBY version of your homeless scenario is me telling you and everyone else to take a homeless person while I refuse to do so. In the climate change scenario, I'm saying the US can be one of the first ones to start it. The US is very much my backyard. I live here, after all. This would be more a case of FIMBY (first in my backyard) rather than NIMBY.
 

sb247

Doer of things
5+ Year Member
Jul 5, 2012
19,494
28,697
131
Galt's Gulch
NIMBY is a cool acronym to throw around, but I don't see how it applies here.

The NIMBY version of your homeless scenario is me telling you and everyone else to take a homeless person while I refuse to do so. In the climate change scenario, I'm saying the US can be one of the first ones to start it. The US is very much my backyard. I live here, after all. This would be more a case of FIMBY (first in my backyard) rather than NIMBY.
do you still ride in combustion vehicles? eat beef? run the air conditioning? shower longer than 2 minutes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VA Hopeful Dr

TooMuchResearch

i'm goin' to Kathmandu...
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 21, 2008
4,937
1,280
281
Townsville, USA
Status
Attending Physician
It's not just about winning. It's an excuse to grab more power. It's justification for realizing all of their dreams of total control over the economy, and it's power they can wield to control people. This is ultimately the Left Wing's goal.
That's all politicians goals. Power and money.

There was an interesting episode of Freakonomics podcast somewhat recent on this, something like America's Hidden Duopoly.
 

emergentmd

10+ Year Member
Jul 6, 2008
1,354
1,443
281
Status
Attending Physician
NIMBY is a cool acronym to throw around, but I don't see how it applies here.

The NIMBY version of your homeless scenario is me telling you and everyone else to take a homeless person while I refuse to do so. In the climate change scenario, I'm saying the US can be one of the first ones to start it. The US is very much my backyard. I live here, after all. This would be more a case of FIMBY (first in my backyard) rather than NIMBY.
Off course this applies. Like everything else, It is great to talk but difficult to back it up. NIMBYISM is just another definition for being hypocritical.

If you believe in CO2 and GW so much, it should start as local as possible and NOT on a national 300+million people scale. Please start by turning off all of your electricity, don't fly, don't drive a car, grow your own food and come back to me with a national GW debate. But don't say we need to spend a large chunk of our GDP, ruin our economy with the hopes that our 15% GW contribution will matter.

The same crap that is spewed by Lib Left all the time.

Bernie wants to raise the taxes on the right. Guess what he is rich, and a millionaire. He made more last year than Most docs. Why don't he start and raise his own taxes. It is possible, very possible. All he needs to do is take no deductions and exemptions. That should increase his taxes by 10%. I bet you anything he took all of his exemptions.

Cali wants to have sanctuary cities all over the place. If they love illegals so much, why don't they bus all the illegals into to Cali and provide them all the benefits. I am sure all of the states that are not sanctuaries cities would love to bus them over there.

I wonder how all of the liberal polices, high tax rates has done for the cali homeless issues.
 

WilcoWorld

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 2, 2004
2,998
1,720
281
Status
Off course this applies. Like everything else, It is great to talk but difficult to back it up. NIMBYISM is just another definition for being hypocritical.

If you believe in CO2 and GW so much, it should start as local as possible and NOT on a national 300+million people scale. Please start by turning off all of your electricity, don't fly, don't drive a car, grow your own food and come back to me with a national GW debate. But don't say we need to spend a large chunk of our GDP, ruin our economy with the hopes that our 15% GW contribution will matter.

The same crap that is spewed by Lib Left all the time.

Bernie wants to raise the taxes on the right. Guess what he is rich, and a millionaire. He made more last year than Most docs. Why don't he start and raise his own taxes. It is possible, very possible. All he needs to do is take no deductions and exemptions. That should increase his taxes by 10%. I bet you anything he took all of his exemptions.

Cali wants to have sanctuary cities all over the place. If they love illegals so much, why don't they bus all the illegals into to Cali and provide them all the benefits. I am sure all of the states that are not sanctuaries cities would love to bus them over there.

I wonder how all of the liberal polices, high tax rates has done for the cali homeless issues.
We fixed the problem of the hole in the ozone layer through governmental policies & the economy didn't crumble. We put a man on the moon. We won WW2. These all required significant sacrifices and our success was not certain.

I paid more for my house so I could walk to work, I pay more for my groceries so I can bike to the store, I limit my choices and buy my meat from my neighbor (a hog farmer), I grow my own vegetables in the summer and eat canned veggies in the winter. I spent my bonus on solar panels a couple of years ago...but I bet you're not convinced. So be it. The fact that something is hard to do is not a reason not to do it.

I'm very fortunate to be able to choose to live this way, but I'm not perfect & there's much more that I could do. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Nevertheless, my individual actions will not save the world without systemic change.

This thread is going nowhere except convincing me that polite & reasoned discussion will not be an effective approach in 2020. That's too bad.
 
Last edited:
Jul 30, 2018
70
30
21
Medicare for All is highly unlikely to pass. It may gain traction several years from now, but it is way too early.

We do have a serious threat on our hands though: HR 861.
Did you see that town hall meeting with sanders? Don’t be so sure. Even if he loses, he still wins. All the major contenders agree with him.
 

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
I was on Emirates recently (in First) but I was back slumming it at the Business class bar. Some hipster dude with a beard went off ranting about Trump and Global warming. Then he started in on me about what a terrible person I was for not going with the accepted Climate Change dogma. I politely reminded him of his massive carbon footprint by traveling in Business class on the most wasteful airline in the world. He promptly shut his mouth and the conversation was over. Seriously these people are morons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb247 and Apollyon

GeneralVeers

Globus Hystericus
10+ Year Member
Mar 19, 2005
5,050
2,349
281
Las Vegas
Status
Attending Physician
Did you see that town hall meeting with sanders? Don’t be so sure. Even if he loses, he still wins. All the major contenders agree with him.
Let them run with it. It's interesting that Medicare-For-All polls at close to 60% positive, but support drops to 37% when you tell people they will have to lose private insurance. It's a losing issue, and will definitely motive Trump voters to get to the polls.