Obama=socialism

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Another CRNA...
Members don't see this ad.
 
2win said:
Another CRNA...
Click to expand...

lol what a weenie.
i'm not a CRNA. I didn't know what that was until yesterday..

but I have to say, the job is looking quite attractive now. I'm going to recommend a few nursing friends, and maybe donate $100 to the AANA...

:D:D:D
 
econdr said:
Very good point. On the one hand, many of you libertarians say you love the free market, but on the other hand you fear competition from CRNAs.

If anything, the Obama administration will deregulate CRNAs, allowing them to pick up some of the slack from the shortage of anesthesiologists, reducing costs and increasing market efficiency.

What entrenched interests hate about Obama is that he's not afraid to take them on to make the market more efficient (yes, that means less pay).

There's a reason why we pay 15% of our GDP to health care while Canada and Britain pay only 10%. And our GDP is HUGE in comparison.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the issue do you?

1. CRNAs are free to compete in at least 14 states. Some would say there are many more with no physician requirements. What has that done to the ACT in Milwaukee? Nothing. Anesthesiologists still run the show in the major hospitals even those with CRNA opt-out.

2. AANA Charges- The AANA lies about cost savings. The Independent CRNA doesn't save our government any money. In fact, some like myself believe it costs MORE money with Solo CRNA care because of the extra morbidity and multiple consults. CRNAs bill Medicare the EXACT same amount as MD ANesthesiologists. Cost Savings are an AANA propaganda tool.

3. In our major hospitals CRNAs need help every day. This is fact. Sure, there are a few outliers among CRNAs that can function at a very high level but the vast majority need MD Anesthesiologist assistance/input. This isn't rhetoric but fact. Now, do we need 1:4 ratios? That is another discussion. But, am I willing to bet my career we need Anesthesiologists at our major hospitals? Absolutely.

4. If Obama wants to save money how about some real cost savings by cutting Solo CRNA care by 50%? This way the AANA's propaganda will be true. How about llimiting Nurse Providers to no more than 60% of physician reimbusement? By the way, Solo CRNAs generally bill Private Insurance companies 2 times Medicare for their services. Again, Independent Nurses should never be allowed by law more than a % of Medicare rates. After all, the AANA claims CRNAs are cheaper. Obama needs to follow through with their claim.

5. Our health care industry is complex. For example, how can a Physician pay for College and Medical School on a Nursing level wage? Will the best and the brightest choose Medicine if Obama slashes reimbursement too much? If Advanced Practice Nurses are part of the solution then shouldn't those Nurses actually save the government money?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
2win said:
I was waiting for this and there it is - "free competition with nurse anesthetists". It was easy to see from the first post your hidden agenda...I would suggest to continue your debate in the midlevel forum or on the AANA website where your "brothers" are. I see you with a great future in the nurse world, charting vitals and day dreaming at the socialist world.
Don't forget to sing:
"CRNA peasants, we are
The great party of workers
The earth belongs only to men"
or - "the OR belongs to CRNA". Get back to charting!
Click to expand...

Yes. As anyone can see from my recent post history, I am obviously a left-of-center nurse anesthetist who is concerned about health care reform and Step 1.

But even if I were, why not address the issue instead of just dismissing the messenger? Do what Blade just did.
 
econdr said:
Very good point. On the one hand, many of you libertarians say you love the free market, but on the other hand you fear competition from CRNAs.

If anything, the Obama administration will deregulate CRNAs, allowing them to pick up some of the slack from the shortage of anesthesiologists, reducing costs and increasing market efficiency.

What entrenched interests hate about Obama is that he's not afraid to take them on to make the market more efficient (yes, that means less pay).

There's a reason why we pay 15% of our GDP to health care while Canada and Britain pay only 10%. And our GDP is HUGE in comparison.
Click to expand...

igottaquestion said:
Yes. As anyone can see from my recent post history, I am obviously a left-of-center nurse anesthetist who is concerned about health care reform and Step 1.

But even if I were, why not address the issue instead of just dismissing the messenger? Do what Blade just did.
Click to expand...
USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists. I don't negotiate with CRNA-s.
Comprendre comrade???
 
igottaquestion said:
Yes. As anyone can see from my recent post history, I am obviously a left-of-center nurse anesthetist who is concerned about health care reform and Step 1.

But even if I were, why not address the issue instead of just dismissing the messenger? Do what Blade just did.
Click to expand...

I work with Socialist loving Physicians. We disagree about most things. Recently, we agreed the economy is a mess. Most feel Oboma needs to focus on an economic recovery before his socialistic agenda. They believe his Stimilus Plan will Work. I believe it was mostly pork and rewards for his Pelosi leftist friends.

We are in for a prolonged recession. Where WallStreet goes so does Mainstreet (eventually). Obama needs TAX revenue for his "change" and programs. He needs a healthy economy and thriving businesses to get that revenue. Clinton understood the balance between government, taxes and private enterprise. Does Obama?
 
2win said:
USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists. I don't negotiate with CRNA-s.
Comprendre comrade???
Click to expand...


Keep_My_Guns_Large.jpg
 
For the reasons Blade mentioned, anesthesiologists should look forward to free market competition with CRNAs. They bill at rates equivalent to that of physicians, so where is the savings? They provide a service with lesser training and medical knowledge, so it's my honest belief they'd get smothered in a free market. The scare from PCPs with regard to NPs is real because NPs bill at a % of what a physicican bills; I believe 85%.

In any case, Blade just laid out the ultimate truth for why we would thrive in a free market. If Obama really wanted to expand services provided by CRNAs, and save money, he'd slash their billing rates to what a NP can bill in comparison to a physician.
 
2win said:
USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists. I don't negotiate with CRNA-s.
Comprendre comrade???
Click to expand...

WOW!!

I was considering anesthesiology before, but NOW. I just don't think I'd get along with my colleagues after reading this garbage. And plus in canada anesthesiologists barely break 100k canadian...
 
econdr said:
WOW!!

I was considering anesthesiology before, but NOW. I just don't think I'd get along with my colleagues after reading this garbage. And plus in canada anesthesiologists barely break 100k canadian...
Click to expand...

You have no idea of what you're talking about :sleep:
 
econdr said:
WOW!!

I was considering anesthesiology before, but NOW. I just don't think I'd get along with my colleagues after reading this garbage. And plus in canada anesthesiologists barely break 100k canadian...
Click to expand...

You're Canadian, and you aren't even in medical school yet. :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
BLADEMDA said:
You don't understand the issue do you?

1. CRNAs are free to compete in at least 14 states. Some would say there are many more with no physician requirements. What has that done to the ACT in Milwaukee? Nothing. Anesthesiologists still run the show in the major hospitals even those with CRNA opt-out.

2. AANA Charges- The AANA lies about cost savings. The Independent CRNA doesn't save our government any money. In fact, some like myself believe it costs MORE money with Solo CRNA care because of the extra morbidity and multiple consults. CRNAs bill Medicare the EXACT same amount as MD ANesthesiologists. Cost Savings are an AANA propaganda tool.

3. In our major hospitals CRNAs need help every day. This is fact. Sure, there are a few outliers among CRNAs that can function at a very high level but the vast majority need MD Anesthesiologist assistance/input. This isn't rhetoric but fact. Now, do we need 1:4 ratios? That is another discussion. But, am I willing to bet my career we need Anesthesiologists at our major hospitals? Absolutely.

4. If Obama wants to save money how about some real cost savings by cutting Solo CRNA care by 50%? This way the AANA's propaganda will be true. How about llimiting Nurse Providers to no more than 60% of physician reimbusement? By the way, Solo CRNAs generally bill Private Insurance companies 2 times Medicare for their services. Again, Independent Nurses should never be allowed by law more than a % of Medicare rates. After all, the AANA claims CRNAs are cheaper. Obama needs to follow through with their claim.

5. Our health care industry is complex. For example, how can a Physician pay for College and Medical School on a Nursing level wage? Will the best and the brightest choose Medicine if Obama slashes reimbursement too much? If Advanced Practice Nurses are part of the solution then shouldn't those Nurses actually save the government money?
Click to expand...

That is crazy. I had no idea independent CRNAs billed at the same rate as anesthesiologists. That makes absolutely no sense.

I expect a cardiologist to be reimbursed at a greater rate than a nurse practioner for a cardiac exam because they have a greater level of expertise in cardiac care eventhough both are doing the same exam. Shouldn't the same apply to an anesthesiologist vs a CRNA?
 
econdr said:
WOW!!

I was considering anesthesiology before, but NOW. I just don't think I'd get along with my colleagues after reading this garbage. And plus in canada anesthesiologists barely break 100k canadian...
Click to expand...

LOL! You are a premed, get back to us after you take your loans out for school and get your statement.
 
CuriousKat said:
That is crazy. I had no idea independent CRNAs billed at the same rate as anesthesiologists. That makes absolutely no sense.

I expect a cardiologist to be reimbursed at a greater rate than a nurse practioner for a cardiac exam because they have a greater level of expertise in cardiac care eventhough both are doing the same exam. Shouldn't the same apply to an anesthesiologist vs a CRNA?
Click to expand...

I don't know why the ASA just doesn't call them out on this BS. Just like the time that the nurse guy said point blank, CRNA=Anesthesiologist.
 
Southpaw said:
For the reasons Blade mentioned, anesthesiologists should look forward to free market competition with CRNAs. They bill at rates equivalent to that of physicians, so where is the savings? They provide a service with lesser training and medical knowledge, so it's my honest belief they'd get smothered in a free market. The scare from PCPs with regard to NPs is real because NPs bill at a % of what a physicican bills; I believe 85%.
Click to expand...

They should bill 50%. Have you have been seen by an NP? I'd rather be seen by a 4th year medical student.
 
Assuming all this is true about CRNA, how do they get such cheap malpractice insurance? If they are such a huge risk, should insurance companies charge a bazillion dollars to insure their work? Or does the doctor who oversees the CRNA take on that liability?
 
econdr said:
Assuming all this is true about CRNA, how do they get such cheap malpractice insurance? If they are such a huge risk, should insurance companies charge a bazillion dollars to insure their work? Or does the doctor who oversees the CRNA take on that liability?
Click to expand...

Most crnas work with anesthesiologists. When there is an anesthesia complication, the lawyers sue whoever has the deepest pockets - ie most malpractice coverage and/or personal property. This means the anesthesiologist usually gets hit with the suit. Malpractice for independent crnas has increased a little, but these things usually take time to change. And it isn't really a HUGE risk, anesthesia in general is much safer than it used to be. I believe that crna only anesthesia isn't as safe, but overall complications are very rare, so it takes a lot of cases to show a difference. Also, crna only cases tend to be simplier and less complicated therefore less risky.
 
econdr said:
Assuming all this is true about CRNA, how do they get such cheap malpractice insurance? If they are such a huge risk, should insurance companies charge a bazillion dollars to insure their work? Or does the doctor who oversees the CRNA take on that liability?
Click to expand...

All of these issues are covered in much detail in the midlevel section. You should read a few threads in there to figure out why anesthesiologists are generally more politically active than others. I hope this thread doesn't digress into another public CRNA vs. MD extravaganza. Just read those threads and remember that there are alot of fields in which midlevels are trying to practice medicine. It is not good for anybody (both patients and doctors) for them to gain more and more independent practice rights. Please don't argue these CRNA vs. MD points they have all been covered already.
 
econdr said:
There's a reason why we pay 15% of our GDP to health care while Canada and Britain pay only 10%. And our GDP is HUGE in comparison.
Click to expand...

Actually, while our GDP is an order of magnitude larger than that of both Britain and Canada, their populations are an order of magnitude smaller. Productivity is based to a large degree on the number of people producing. Thus, your final comment really holds no water.
 
Also, I just realized I am quite tardy to the party. Sorry for the weird post.
 
econdr said:
Assuming all this is true about CRNA, how do they get such cheap malpractice insurance? If they are such a huge risk, should insurance companies charge a bazillion dollars to insure their work? Or does the doctor who oversees the CRNA take on that liability?
Click to expand...
That's really interesting the manipulation....So you changed the topic just to get away with the real problem - but to remember to you
OBAMA=SOCIALISM
che_obama.gif
 
2win said:
That's really interesting the manipulation....So you changed the topic just to get away with the real problem - but to remember to you
OBAMA=SOCIALISM
che_obama.gif
Click to expand...

::rolls eyes::

McCain tried that line, remember? It doesn't work, as we are no longer in the 1950s.
 
LadyWolverine said:
Thus, your final comment really holds no water.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, our output (not productivity which is output per unit labor) is higher due to our population size.

In economics there are economies of scale. If our economy is bigger, our health care system is bigger, and should have lower costs in general.

However, our economy is much larger and much less efficient. This must be fixed.
 
McCain tried that line, remember? It doesn't work, as we are no longer in the 1950s.[/quote]
A bullet in 1950 killed the same like one is killing now. Sophistication is not your forte so I have to draw for you....


 
coldweatherblue said:
Godwin's Law...

The only difference in the German national anthem in the Third Reich was that it contained an extra verse about the conflict and protecting German lands. Not sure how you're looking to use that to support your position.
Click to expand...

He doesn't know that that's just 2 equal sides of the coin - German national- socializm and general socialiszm :laugh:
 
hoyden said:
:thumbup:

That's perfect!
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/03/obama-repeal-bush-abortion-regulation/

"I will do nothing against my conscience in the practice of medicine ever regardless of what any law is at any time, " Sen. Tom Coburn told FOX News. "And I can tell you that there are a lot of physicians that feel exactly that same way across the country."
Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.
A senior Obama administration official told FOX News the Bush regulation is too vague and could prevent some professionals from offering a full range of services to their patients.
well - we'll see....
 
2win said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/03/obama-repeal-bush-abortion-regulation/

"I will do nothing against my conscience in the practice of medicine ever regardless of what any law is at any time, " Sen. Tom Coburn told FOX News. "And I can tell you that there are a lot of physicians that feel exactly that same way across the country."
Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.
A senior Obama administration official told FOX News the Bush regulation is too vague and could prevent some professionals from offering a full range of services to their patients.
well - we'll see....
Click to expand...

Quoting FOX is about as useful as quoting Chuck Norris Facts... which, by the way, are really entertaining (although quite far-fetched)...

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

That said, in reality who would have won? Him or Bruce Lee?
 
Code Brown said:
Quoting FOX is about as useful as quoting Chuck Norris Facts... which, by the way, are really entertaining (although quite far-fetched)...

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

That said, in reality who would have won? Him or Bruce Lee?
Click to expand...

Truth is that I hate MSNBC. What I should expect from a commie like Obama, you're right. The man wants to be friendly with islamic fundamentalists so what? He forces me to kill childrens? Yes he will. He wants unions all over? Let's see who's idiot to put money in an industry ruled by unions. Let's see the economic growth - take a look at the GM and their problems. Free healthcare, free education, free daycare, free cars maybe. Maybe he will pay for that but I bet not. And I don't care to much for me - I made enough to live in Aruba the rest of my life - I care about my chidren. The one that will suffer is you - student right?
Don't blame people like me for that. Blame Obama - the non US citizen president, Pelosi and all the commnists around him.
BTW did you notice that the union leaders have bad teeth and Walmart clothes? It will be a nightmare to negociate with CRNA union in the future (if I'll stay in private practice).
 
obama may be open to having a dialogue with terrorist organizations, but i don't sustain dialogues with crazy or racist. user "ignored."
 
econdr said:
::rolls eyes::

McCain tried that line, remember? It doesn't work, as we are no longer in the 1950s.
Click to expand...

McCain lost mainly because he cynically and transparently picked an airhead nutjob from Alaska as his running mate. He chased disgruntled and fickle Hillary supporters and drove away every moderate in the United States in the name of "energizing" a base that was going to vote for him anyway.

His criticism of Obama's promises to do everything for everybody was valid and could have been effective, if only the electorate could have heard him over the circus music that followed Palin around.
 
pgg said:
McCain lost mainly because he cynically and transparently picked an airhead nutjob from Alaska as his running mate. He chased disgruntled and fickle Hillary supporters and drove away every moderate in the United States in the name of "energizing" a base that was going to vote for him anyway.

His criticism of Obama's promises to do everything for everybody was valid and could have been effective, if only the electorate could have heard him over the circus music that followed Palin around.
Click to expand...


MCCAIN LOST because he was not the right man for the job. He is part of the problem. I remember the day before or the same day that the dow dropped like almost 1000 points he made a speech and said "THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ECONOMY ARE SOUND" Im like wtf is he smoking? He was just clueless as to what the american people wanted and pandered to his base. Thats why he lost.
 
2win said:
Truth is that I hate MSNBC. What I should expect from a commie like Obama, you're right. The man wants to be friendly with islamic fundamentalists so what? He forces me to kill childrens? Yes he will. He wants unions all over? Let's see who's idiot to put money in an industry ruled by unions. Let's see the economic growth - take a look at the GM and their problems. Free healthcare, free education, free daycare, free cars maybe. Maybe he will pay for that but I bet not. And I don't care to much for me - I made enough to live in Aruba the rest of my life - I care about my chidren. The one that will suffer is you - student right?
Don't blame people like me for that. Blame Obama - the non US citizen president, Pelosi and all the commnists around him.
BTW did you notice that the union leaders have bad teeth and Walmart clothes? It will be a nightmare to negociate with CRNA union in the future (if I'll stay in private practice).
Click to expand...

wow, are you really an attending? very, very scarey...
 
HCE said:
wow, are you really an attending? very, very scarey...
Click to expand...
I know that "you people" are scared by educated, honest, hard working, religious citizens!
quod erat demonstrandum
2win
 
2win said:
I know that "you people" are scared by educated, honest, hard working, religious citizens!
quod erat demonstrandum
2win
Click to expand...

no...ignorance and bigotry scare me
 
pgg said:
McCain lost mainly because he cynically and transparently picked an airhead nutjob from Alaska as his running mate. He chased disgruntled and fickle Hillary supporters and drove away every moderate in the United States in the name of "energizing" a base that was going to vote for him anyway.

His criticism of Obama's promises to do everything for everybody was valid and could have been effective, if only the electorate could have heard him over the circus music that followed Palin around.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Can you honestly tell me that every single moderate who voted for McCain in the primary wouldn't have voted for Obama in the general election?

McCain lost the moderate vote because he is an horrible old man who poisons people with his awfulness. Conservatives were ready to stay home and take one for the team rather than vote for McCain. Palin gave them someone to vote for. I think you can thank Palin for making the election as close as it was.
 
seelee said:
McCain lost the moderate vote because he is an horrible old man who poisons people with his awfulness. Conservatives were ready to stay home and take one for the team rather than vote for McCain. Palin gave them someone to vote for. I think you can thank Palin for making the election as close as it was.
Click to expand...

I had this debate on this very forum ad nauseum before the election, starting barely a couple days after he chose Palin on Aug 29th. I remember the Palin Kool Aid consumers gleefully pointing to a post RNC bump in the polls as proof that McCain was back on track thanks to Palin ... all the while carefully choosing to ignore McCains steady declines in every single swing state as she systematically alienated moderate and undecided voters. He lost the election the day he chose her; I knew it, everyone with a shred of objectivity knew it, even conservative talk show pundits knew it (and admitted it when they thought the microphones were off).

Conservatives and the moral majority fundie segment of society were going to vote for McCain no matter who he chose as his running mate. I don't know where you get the idea they were ready to stay home and take one for the team; after all, if there's one bloc of voters you can count on to actually show up on election day and vote, it ain't the young liberals.

McCain ran a horrendously inept campaign. After watching Rove the last two elections, it was simply baffling. It was one ill-conceived circus stunt after another, whether it was screeching about terrorist ties to Ayers or bigotry ties to Wright, or suspending his campaign to go back to DC to fix the economy, or naming Caribou Barbie his VP candidate.

I was simply disagreeing with econdr's assertion that McCain's loss was a result of his criticism of Obama's big spendin' plans. It wasn't - and if he'd kept consistent, rational objections to Obama's everything-for-everyone proposals at the forefront of his campaign ... and perhaps named a running mate with a hint of credibility rather than one who could only be taken seriously by SNL writers ... well, he still probably would have lost. It was a bad time to be running on the incumbent party's ticket. But I think he could have made it close without her baggage.
 
McCain lost my vote in the primaries, as did Huckabee and Guilianni. There was no way I would vote for any of those clowns. It was the easiest choice in the world not to vote for McCain. It remained difficult to find someone to vote for instead of him, though.
 
pgg said:
I had this debate on this very forum ad nauseum before the election, starting barely a couple days after he chose Palin on Aug 29th. I remember the Palin Kool Aid consumers gleefully pointing to a post RNC bump in the polls as proof that McCain was back on track thanks to Palin ... all the while carefully choosing to ignore McCains steady declines in every single swing state as she systematically alienated moderate and undecided voters. He lost the election the day he chose her; I knew it, everyone with a shred of objectivity knew it, even conservative talk show pundits knew it (and admitted it when they thought the microphones were off).

Conservatives and the moral majority fundie segment of society were going to vote for McCain no matter who he chose as his running mate. I don't know where you get the idea they were ready to stay home and take one for the team; after all, if there's one bloc of voters you can count on to actually show up on election day and vote, it ain't the young liberals.

McCain ran a horrendously inept campaign. After watching Rove the last two elections, it was simply baffling. It was one ill-conceived circus stunt after another, whether it was screeching about terrorist ties to Ayers or bigotry ties to Wright, or suspending his campaign to go back to DC to fix the economy, or naming Caribou Barbie his VP candidate.

I was simply disagreeing with econdr's assertion that McCain's loss was a result of his criticism of Obama's big spendin' plans. It wasn't - and if he'd kept consistent, rational objections to Obama's everything-for-everyone proposals at the forefront of his campaign ... and perhaps named a running mate with a hint of credibility rather than one who could only be taken seriously by SNL writers ... well, he still probably would have lost. It was a bad time to be running on the incumbent party's ticket. But I think he could have made it close without her baggage.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that McCain was the biggest factor in his loosing. I for one am glad he lost (as much as I disagree with Obama, had McCain won, the consequences would have been much more severe). The only reason he won the primaries after all was because a single poll early in the race showed him having the best chance of beating Hillary. Of course, the only thing that matters in the early polls is name recognition (which was the only thing McCain had going for him, that and his creepy smile), but it was enough to garner support of the Republican establishment. Frankly, they got what they deserve this election. I think it is hillarious to see them all worshiping at the alter of fiscal responsibiltity while the Liberals are crowing about how everyone should support the president without question.
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...9/03/12/a_head_with_a_heart/?s_campaign=yahoo
"I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I'd like to get your reaction to it," Levy began. "I'd like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners - the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don't want to put an additional burden on them.
I WANT TO SEE IF MD-S ARE CUTTING THEIR INCOME TO KEEP THE FOOD WORKERS, TRANSPORTATION AND SO ON WITH THEIR JOBS. OR IF CRNA-S WILL CUT THEIR INCOME. I WOULD SAY NO - AND I THINK CRNA-S WILL SAY THE SAME.We are living in a stupid world!
 
2win said:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...9/03/12/a_head_with_a_heart/?s_campaign=yahoo
"I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I'd like to get your reaction to it," Levy began. "I'd like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners - the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don't want to put an additional burden on them.
I WANT TO SEE IF MD-S ARE CUTTING THEIR INCOME TO KEEP THE FOOD WORKERS, TRANSPORTATION AND SO ON WITH THEIR JOBS. OR IF CRNA-S WILL CUT THEIR INCOME. I WOULD SAY NO - AND I THINK CRNA-S WILL SAY THE SAME.We are living in a stupid world!
Click to expand...

Thank you for making that obvious ...

And since this thread is about stoking the embers so we can kill the 6 days before match time, here is some fun for everyone...

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
 
2win said:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...9/03/12/a_head_with_a_heart/?s_campaign=yahoo
"I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I'd like to get your reaction to it," Levy began. "I'd like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners - the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don't want to put an additional burden on them.
I WANT TO SEE IF MD-S ARE CUTTING THEIR INCOME TO KEEP THE FOOD WORKERS, TRANSPORTATION AND SO ON WITH THEIR JOBS. OR IF CRNA-S WILL CUT THEIR INCOME. I WOULD SAY NO - AND I THINK CRNA-S WILL SAY THE SAME.We are living in a stupid world!
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are against this or for it. I for one am for it. I think it is great to see people take problems like these in their own hands. Making their own choices on how to help others. Much better than waiting for the Government to solve all our problems. This smacks of charity more than socialism. Kudos.
 
Finnaly it is the guy call - I would call it a populist measure. What I don't see in this statement is the answer from physicians - they will cut their income (already a joke taking in consideration the number of hours really worked, the medicare ridiculous payments, the malpractice stuff...). In his statement the MD-s are ignored as an entity. It is very convenient for everybody to stick all the time in our face the Hippocratic oath. In the same oath they should remember that physcians children should have free tuition Iin the medical school), physicians wifes shouldn't pay the hospital bills and so on. Conclusion: manipulation of physicians at their convenience.
I would like to see a physician union. Why for some is YES and for us in NO?
It is incovenient, isn't is?

original version
"
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else."

"If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
Social Distancing
Replies
45
Views
3K
deleted59964
D
DeadSpace
Anesthesiology and Social Media
2
Replies
83
Views
10K
I'm a Fake Doctor
I
G
Social drinking is PS 2?
Replies
9
Views
3K
DreamLover
DreamLover
A
Obamacare Is Killing The CRNA Market
Replies
29
Views
6K
Random Anesthesiologist
Random Anesthesiologist
C
ASA Member Appointed to Working Group for President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative
Replies
0
Views
1K
Carbocation1
C
Top