Posted this on Reddit

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Don't waste your timeee
You're that mad that I called you out on your lies? And then you messaged me apologizing? And ever since you’ve been agreeing with every oppositions of my stances: when a pre pharm says, “saturation is not real” but I say it is, you suddenly start encouraging the idea that it’s not real.

This is why men and mid levels get a bad rep. Any hit to your ego, even online is worth deteriorating your entire belief system.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
You're that mad that I called you out on your lies? And then you messaged me apologizing? And ever since you’ve been agreeing with every oppositions of my stances: when a pre pharm says, “saturation is not real” but I say it is, you suddenly start encouraging the idea that it’s not real.

This is why men and mid levels get a bad rep. Any hit to your ego, even online is worth deteriorating your entire belief system.
Whatever. You are the fake one. At the time I was working guess what I'm not working now :). You post every hour
 
I'm on a new place now and working toward new dreams while you are on here bickering away and getting prob status. I'm a centrist by default
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The only reason I call the pharmacist for advice is if I am too lazy or busy to do my own google search. What is more damning is almost every time I ask them a question, they put me on hold and do their own internet search. If this is their value to hospitals, they better watch our b/c they will be replaced with something cheaper.

Even though I know that this is spoken with a grain of truth, I hope you remember this statement the next time a pharmacist catches your overdose or drug allergy.

I don’t know if your ED pharmacists just suck but my hospital’s actually provide value and participate in code blues, stroke codes, and generally save your asses on occasion.

Also I had an ED physician call me for an antibiotic recommendation the other day that didn’t even know linezolid comes in a tablet. And I didn’t have to google to figure that out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
You're that mad that I called you out on your lies? And then you messaged me apologizing? And ever since you’ve been agreeing with every oppositions of my stances: when a pre pharm says, “saturation is not real” but I say it is, you suddenly start encouraging the idea that it’s not real.

This is why men and mid levels get a bad rep. Any hit to your ego, even online is worth deteriorating your entire belief system.
I apologize if you think I am attacking you. But realize you were a waste of breathe. Now I don't care. I don't go around attacking everyone on the broad
I think you are wasting your breathe and just basically your postings won't change anyones mind. Nor would mines. And here we go again, wasting time on this forum and getting triggered when you or I could do something better. As for changing my position, I didn't change it. I was always for the pre pharm, I was just warning what would happen. I do very much support her going into pharmacy. As for the above point, I think midlevel are worth it for sure. If you look at my PA broad. But talking to you is like talking to a wall. Things get heated up and there is nothing to solve, you resort belittling others. Oh saturation? Its real but people should still do it if they feel like it, just like you quitting or taking a risky decision, the returns are higher. I just feel this topic on attacking others outdated.
 
Last edited:
Who is mcpickle and why is he muting people this early into his sdn career?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Look... Mcpickle... your cool in my book. Lighten up. Let’s have a little fun here instead of ruminating about how bad pharmacy is.

Truth is - I know there are some very real and concerning problems in pharmacy. Maybe you made a great decision leaving pharmacy. I was just trying to make you second guess yourself because i would hate to see you miss out on something that may work well for you. Some of us do well in pharmacy. In any case, I do wish you the best with your decisions.

Now - this is the internet, and we should come here to let our guards down and talk shop in a fun way. That’s all.

And - I’m not the only one sick and tired of a**hats like that guy who just posted a scathing slap in the face to pharmacists and you quickly liked his post. A lot of us are sick of this crap and this “emergentmdouch” has no idea what he is talking about. If you are enthusiastic about supporting posts like this in the middle of a forum of pharmacist, please just go start your own forum or something. Otherwise, be cool.... We don’t need you to open our eyes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Look... Mcpickle... your cool in my book. Lighten up. Let’s have a little fun here instead of ruminating about how bad pharmacy is.

Truth is - I know there are some very real and concerning problems in pharmacy. Maybe you made a great decision leaving pharmacy. I was just trying to make you second guess yourself because i would hate to see you miss out on something that may work well for you. Some of us do well in pharmacy. In any case, I do wish you the best with your decisions.

Now - this is the internet, and we should come here to let our guards down and talk shop in a fun way. That’s all.

And - I’m not the only one sick and tired of a**hats like that guy who just posted a scathing slap in the face to pharmacists and you quickly liked his post. A lot of us are sick of this crap and this “emergentmdouch” has no idea what he is talking about. If you are enthusiastic about supporting posts like this in the middle of a forum of pharmacist, please just go start your own forum or something. Otherwise, be cool.... We don’t need you to open our eyes.

But we definitely should be talking about it. Yes, even you don’t deny the issues and that leaving now may as well be a better decision. There’s no need to condescend the post and decision then. Especially when you make posts like these.

I agree with parts of what he said. I agree that pharmacists should be careful. The “too lazy to look it up himself” is obviously a sad ego thing that doesn’t take away from other points of his argument. I’m all for mid level providers, I’ve been defending them up and down. A doctor who claim pharmacists are useless and have never made a prescribing mistake in their life but are calling each other back and forth is clearly insecure and can’t admit someone knows something they don’t. If a doctor claims she’s calling a pharmacist for health information then she’s relying on them to find and interpret that knowledge. They themselves should look themselves in the mirror for relying on such a useless incompetent unqualified individual in terms of healthcare knowledge to interpret, deliver and utilize that information, should just grabbed any nurse or asked the receptionist to look it for them then. Anyone can use the internet and find that information according to them. But nah, they called a pharmacist.

All of healthcares high tier “white collar” work will be socialized and automated. Pharmacy just fell first. There’s no denying mid levels are rising in demand whether MDs want to argue the quality of that output of demand doesn’t matter at all. Doctors are one of the oldest professions. Mid-levels are relatively very new and will continue to practice through trial and error. This projection and demand means that society needs more ‘quantity of care’ and when that quantity of care is not out doing its benefits of care, they will sink. They can interpret the data anyway other than the obvious if they want but its clear denial, like tiktok displays. Once this happens PCP will easily be less in demand and become the “double checkers” like pharmacist. Being overqualified and too expensive for the same work has shown its effects.

Pharmacists are very qualified to be healthcare providers. If the amount of schooling is the argument, pharmacists do 8 years and some with 2-3 residencies. I think the numbers are matched. Sure you can argue the quality if those residencies/education/politics all you want but we’ll just have to ask a pharmD/MD on the quality of education, not the applications allowed for use from their title. The value of white collar work will always sink as to access to information/tech rises and as education becomes socialized. Barriers will fall as get through medical/pharmacy school therefore increase the individuals qualified to do the work which will enviably decrease the demand/pay of that work. Healthcare professionals will no longer be secluded to those that had the money to go MCAT prep, resources and time to do research and volunteer for those applications and the cost of applications in general.

All I’m saying is pharmacists lack power, scope, and licensure to make it possible to be in demand providers, not their qualifications. Lack of power has no correlation to their worth in society. Women lack power. POC lack power. There’s no point in talking to a pharmD vs an NP for my UTI if they have no prescription power as sad as it is. The power were put into the hands of those who lead the profession and pharmacy leaders/politicians failed them. Miserably.
 
Last edited:
Stop. It’ll never in any circumstance be cheaper and more accessible to see a physician vs a mid level. Just stop. You’re saying the same thing over and over again.

Example, TB tests are regularly needed for placement for jobs, schooling, ect. Which is not reimbursed from institutions. As an uninsured college student, I’m going to go to the CVS clinic down the street to get it down by an NP, which very much got the job done. CVS isn’t going to employ a physician. Why? Because of the cost??? A “good” physician will never want to work there or have to. So it’s a joke to say physicians are filling these roles. Are you at CVS? One of the most accessible retailers in the US?

But we can further into how access isn’t just determined by the money like you’re arguing. I will positively assume there are more CVS clinics, urgent care that
1. Are open to the general public
2. Are open more hours a day

than free clinics where doctors volunteer their time on the weekend with students which is what the uninsured or poorly insured have to utilize. You don’t know how many times I’ve searched “free clinic near me” on google and just settled for a CVS clinic. I’m obviously not a minority in this.

What you’re essentially arguing is that no care is better than some care for the poor because you’ve had to “clean up” a mid levels mistake. But please do go on about how you’re the victim and they are ruining healthcare.
Not everyone utilizes minute clinics. I certainly dont. I have a family practice physician i see on a regular basis.
I did not say anywhere im a victim or that midlevels are ruining healthcare. You are adding in things that are not true.
There are plenty of patients to go around
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
But we definitely should be talking about it. Yes, even you don’t deny the issues and that leaving now may as well be a better decision. There’s no need to condescend the post and decision then. Especially when you make posts like these.

I agree with parts of what he said. I agree that pharmacists should be careful. The “too lazy to look it up himself” is obviously a sad ego thing that doesn’t take away from other points of his argument. I’m all for mid level providers, I’ve been defending them up and down. A doctor who claim pharmacists are useless and have never made a prescribing mistake in their life but are calling each other back and forth is clearly insecure and can’t admit someone knows something they don’t. If a doctor claims she’s calling a pharmacist for health information then she’s relying on them to find and interpret that knowledge. They themselves should look themselves in the mirror for relying on such a useless incompetent unqualified individual in terms of healthcare knowledge to interpret, deliver and utilize that information, should just grabbed any nurse or asked the receptionist to look it for them then. Anyone can use the internet and find that information according to them. But nah, they called a pharmacist.

All of healthcares high tier “white collar” work will be socialized and automated. Pharmacy just fell first. There’s no denying mid levels are rising in demand whether MDs want to argue the quality of that output of demand doesn’t matter at all. Doctors are one of the oldest professions. Mid-levels are relatively very new and will continue to practice through trial and error. This projection and demand means that society needs more ‘quantity of care’ and when that quantity of care is not out doing its benefits of care, they will sink. They can interpret the data anyway other than the obvious if they want but its clear denial, like tiktok displays. Once this happens PCP will easily be less in demand and become the “double checkers” like pharmacist. Being overqualified and too expensive for the same work has shown its effects.

Pharmacists are very qualified to be healthcare providers. If the amount of schooling is the argument, pharmacists do 8 years and some with 2-3 residencies. I think the numbers are matched. Sure you can argue the quality if those residencies/education/politics all you want but we’ll just have to ask a pharmD/MD on the quality of education, not the applications allowed for use from their title. The value of white collar work will always sink as to access to information/tech rises and as education becomes socialized. Barriers will fall as get through medical/pharmacy school therefore increase the individuals qualified to do the work which will enviably decrease the demand/pay of that work. Healthcare professionals will no longer be secluded to those that had the money to go MCAT prep, resources and time to do research and volunteer for those applications and the cost of applications in general.

All I’m saying is pharmacists lack power, scope, and licensure to make it possible to be in demand providers, not their qualifications. Lack of power has no correlation to their worth in society. Women lack power. POC lack power. There’s no point in talking to a pharmD vs an NP for my UTI if they have no prescription power as sad as it is. The power were put into the hands of those who lead the profession and pharmacy leaders/politicians failed them. Miserably.
Midlevels are not rising in demand, as many patients say they prefer to see the physician. There are just tons of midlevels being churned out, some in diploma mill schools and online educations. Ther number of residency slots for physicians havent increased by as much as the number of increased med school slots, thats where the bottleneck is, and it is controlled by the govt
 
Midlevels are not rising in demand, as many patients say they prefer to see the physician. There are just tons of midlevels being churned out, some in diploma mill schools and online educations. Ther number of residency slots for physicians havent increased by as much as the number of increased med school slots, thats where the bottleneck is, and it is controlled by the govt
Medscape.com? Are you serious? Are you really a doctor? Try something more like BLS and type in NP, PA. Then tell me again if midlevels are rising in demand or not. Lol. Money speaks. You ignore literally everything that I’ve said about most doctors being on private insurance. Patients prefer iPhone X to iPhone 6. Just take the L. Healthcare shouldn’t be a commodity but it is.
 
Last edited:
Not everyone utilizes minute clinics. I certainly dont. I have a family practice physician i see on a regular basis.
I did not say anywhere im a victim or that midlevels are ruining healthcare. You are adding in things that are not true.
There are plenty of patients to go around
Are you not a physician? That makes at least 20k a month? Do you not acknowledge that you are in the 3%? Vs the 97%? Are you for real right? See. This is where you are privileged and should stop talking. “But I’ve never seen the ice caps melting so it’s not real”.

“Not everyone uses minute clinics” NOT EVERYONE HAS INSURANCE. you’ve got to be kidding me. Then please come work at minute clinics during your extra time and leisure since there are like no patients who utilize those accesses of care.

NP/PAs/Mid levels do what you do at the fraction of the cost. Get over it. If they improperly provided me with care for a UTI, you can gather evidence and sue them since you feel that strongly about my health and the care I was provided.

I’ve dropped out and enrolled in engineering. I have no bias. I acknowledge my path towards pharmacy is shrinking. I think you should probably open your mind more to privileges in your life and medscape.com.

Ask yourself why there are health discrepancies. You are implying that you are the victim in the sense that NPs are ruining your profession. That you need to clean up their messes. You won’t acknowledge what they do well. Why? Because it’s what you do and it invalidates you, your pay, you status, and education. They learned it all online which means adding, “pee when hurt” + “sexually active” = UTI is only an equation that can probably be taught in med school. Then doctors should not be able to seclude their services to only the elite. You need to work for less. Plain and simple.

Stop blaming the government and blame yourselves. You are capitalizing on healthcare.

But go ahead and hit me with another “article” that says, “but but but it’s not our fault that poor people have no access to health!!! Stupid government. Stupid midlevels. WHY ME have to fix everything myself but not live with any of the consequences of not having any healthcare at all... poor me..”

I’m questioning if you’re actually a physician now or whether if they are as intelligent as they claim if you’re this uninformed and cannot comprehend access in the healthcare system.

Not knowing when to quit and saying, “I’m a doctor and you’re a drop out” does not scream intelligent to me if that’s your next line. Maybe from the surface that’s what we see but as we all know, maybe not you, as you seem unable to comprehend issues other than what you can see and experience in your state of Oregon at your family practice (isn’t neuroplasticity an indicator of intelligence?) but when you dive deeper into the book, the cover means nothing.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Are you not a physician? That makes at least 20k a month? Do you not acknowledge that you are in the 3%? Vs the 97%? Are you for real right? See. This is where you are privileged and should stop talking. “But I’ve never seen the ice caps melting so it’s not real”.

“Not everyone uses minute clinics” NOT EVERYONE HAS INSURANCE. you’ve got to be kidding me. Then please come work at minute clinics during your extra time and leisure since there are like no patients who utilize those accesses of care.

NP/PAs/Mid levels do what you do at the fraction of the cost. Get over it. If they improperly provided me with care for a UTI, you can gather evidence and sue them since you feel that strongly about my health and the care I was provided.

I’ve dropped out and enrolled in engineering. I have no bias. I acknowledge my path towards pharmacy is shrinking. I think you should probably open your mind more to privileges in your life and medscape.com.

Ask yourself why there are health discrepancies. You are implying that you are the victim in the sense that NPs are ruining your profession. That you need to clean up their messes. You won’t acknowledge what they do well. Why? Because it’s what you do and it invalidates you, your pay, you status, and education. They learned it all online which means adding, “pee when hurt” + “sexually active” = UTI is only an equation that can probably be taught in med school. Then doctors should not be able to seclude their services to only the elite. You need to work for less. Plain and simple.

Stop blaming the government and blame yourselves. You are capitalizing on healthcare.

But go ahead and hit me with another “article” that says, “but but but it’s not our fault that poor people have no access to health!!! Stupid government. Stupid midlevels. WHY ME have to fix everything myself but not live with any of the consequences of not having any healthcare at all... poor me..”

I’m questioning if you’re actually a physician now or whether if they are as intelligent as they claim if you’re this uninformed and cannot comprehend access in the healthcare system.

Not knowing when to quit and saying, “I’m a doctor and you’re a drop out” does not scream intelligent to me if that’s your next line. Maybe from the surface that’s what we see but as we all know, maybe not you, as you seem unable to comprehend issues other than what you can see and experience in your state of Oregon at your family practice (isn’t neuroplasticity an indicator of intelligence?) but when you dive deeper into the book, the cover means nothing.
It’s not elite to pay $50/month for a primary care doctor
 
It’s not elite to pay $50/month for a primary care doctor
Can both of you stop. Yeah a $50 PCD that I’ll get to see in the next month because they are booked af. No appointments for emergencies. Why are most doctors on private insurances? Why do most of doctors not take Medicare? Because all of you are out of touch and don’t care about the poor.

Lol. Get off your own egos and admit there are barriers to health care that mid level providers provide. There’s a boom in demand. But yeah just keep ignoring those facts because I know it invalidates your status, pay, and profession making you guys not bias at all that’s why the argument always keeps returning to “its harder than it seems”. Midlevels are more economical and the demand proves they are effective. Or keep ignoring it and go to medscape.com instead BLS. Are doctors not taught how to find reliable sources...?

But do go on how NPs/PAs can’t help me with a TB test, UTI, flu because it’s harder than it seems and you are obviously so concerned about everyone’s well-being right? That’s why both of you guys work for 100k right? If you guys are actually doctors.

Would you say to me I did the right thing for waiting a week/month to see a doctor for a UTI than to go to urgent care/minute clinic?

I’m seriously wondering what your answers are for this because I’m starting to speculate that you are to say yes.

Addition to this how would you explain the discrepancies in health in POC and poorer individuals? Also your stance on minute clinics and urgent care? Because tiktok never ever used one before therefore thinks it’s useless. So I’m just wondering why you think bullion dollar corporations are investing in these? Also if you honestly think health outcomes are more negative either the practice of mid level? What do you believe this demand means?

It’d be cool if you guys quit dodging my questions and citing medscape. Lol. Let me guess. I have no idea what I’m talking about right? Crazy how many things I don’t know? I’d still like your opinion on all of my questions though. I’m genuinely curious on what I don’t know and your perspective on the trends.
 
Last edited:
Can both of you stop. Yeah a $50 PCD that I’ll get to see in the next month because they are booked af. No appointments for emergencies. Lol. Get off your own egos and admit there are barriers to health care that mid level providers provide. There’s a boom in demand. But yeah just keep ignoring those facts because I know it invalidates your status, pay, and profession making you guys not bias at all that’s why the. argument always keeps returning to “its harder than it seems”.

Just, you know, just keep saying it’s better to to have no care for the poor than those damn super accessible minute clinics! But do go on how NPs/PAs can’t help me with a TB test, UTI, flu because it’s harder than it seems and you are obviously so concerned about everyone’s well-being right? That’s why both of you guys work for 100k right? If you guys are actually doctors.

Would you say to me I did the right thing for waiting a week to see a doctor for a UTI than to go to urgent care/minute clinic?

I’m seriously wondering what your answers are for this because I’m starting to speculate that you are to say yes.

Addition to this how would you explain the discrepancies in health in POC and poorer individuals? Also your stance on minute clinics and urgent care? Because tiktok never ever used one before therefore thinks it’s useless. So I’m just wondering why you think bullion dollar corporations are investing in these? Also if you honestly think health outcomes are more negative either the practice of mid level? What do you believe this demand means?

It’d be cool if you guys quit dodging my questions and citing medscape. Lol. Let me guess. I have no idea what I’m talking about right? Crazy how many things I don’t know? I’d still like your opinion on all of my questions though. I’m genuinely curious on what I don’t know and your perspective on the issues.
~$50/month can get you a direct primary care doctor and then you don't need appts

I think for your general UTI/cough whatever evaluation seeing an appropriately supervised midlevel with a doctor providing sufficient oversight is appropriate. I'm sorry how I missed that question earlier. The discrepancies for health between different populations largely break down to money and education, some groups have more and that translates to better health. Corporations invest in things that they think will make them money.
 
~$50/month can get you a direct primary care doctor and then you don't need appts

I think for your general UTI/cough whatever evaluation seeing an appropriately supervised midlevel with a doctor providing sufficient oversight is appropriate. I'm sorry how I missed that question earlier. The discrepancies for health between different populations largely break down to money and education, some groups have more and that translates to better health. Corporations invest in things that they think will make them money.
You’re out of touch. Just saying. The 3% need to calm down on how easy they think it is for people with no insurance to get appointments. It’s kind of enraging. Look up, “why is it so hard to get a doctors appointment” and see how many people have asked that.

So you are wrong to say earlier how midlevel practitioners are morally wrong to practice as they do supply some form of healthcare to individuals? And you would prefer me to go see an NP at a minute clinic than to wait a month to see the doctor? Would you say it is cheaper for me to see a midlevel or a doctor? Looking at it from an economic standpoint? You’re saying a cut in costs in healthcare providers doesn’t make those services cheaper, correct?

Could you elaborate on how money translates to better health? Also how corporations try to make the most money as possible? How many doctors would you say are on Medicare? Would you say that doctors taking a pay cut would help more people? Would you say have no say in how much they make and what health insurance policies they operate on? Would you say that employing more midlevels is more economical and generate positive health outcomes for the general population? How would corporations make money off of minute clinics if they are never utilized like TikTok has said? You missed many questions btw. How would you say a midlevel impacts health outcomes? In terms of access? Also what the demand for mid level mean to you?


If you’re going to say something like it’s morally wrong for midlevels to practice and say they provide more harm to society I think you need should electorate more than, “they bad”, “doctor only $50 what are you talking about”. Because I can’t help but conclude from the generalizations that you are very bias as it hits your ego. Not because you genuinely believe they are producing more negative health outcomes than positive for patients. Or do you believe that? You didn’t answer that either.
 
Last edited:
You’re out of touch. Just saying. The 3% need to calm down on how easy they think it is for people with no insurance to get appointments. It’s kind of enraging. Look up, “why is it so hard to get a doctors appointment” and see how many people have asked that.

So you are wrong to say earlier how midlevel practitioners are morally wrong to practice as they do supply some form of healthcare to individuals? And you would prefer me to go see an NP at a minute clinic than to wait a month to see the doctor? Would you say it is cheaper for me to see a midlevel or a doctor? Looking at it from an economic standpoint? You’re saying a cut in costs in healthcare providers doesn’t make those services cheaper, correct?

Could you elaborate on how money translates to better health? Also how corporations try to make the most money as possible? How many doctors would you say are on Medicare? Would you say that doctors taking a pay cut would help more people? Would you say have no say in how much they make and what health insurance policies they operate on? Would you say that employing more midlevels is more economical and generate positive health outcomes for the general population? How would corporations make money off of minute clinics if they are never utilized like TikTok has said? You missed many questions btw. How would you say a midlevel impacts health outcomes? In terms of access?


If you’re going to say something like it’s morally wrong for midlevels to practice and say they provide more harm to society I think you need should electorate more than, “they bad”, “doctor only $50 what are you talking about”.
You type a lot of words sir/ma'am

I apologize for what seems to be the main miscommunication. appropriately supervised midlevels are fine, but they don't want to stay supervised. I think anyone who wants to take the best care of patients should choose doctor if those are the fields they are considering.

I really don't understand your request to elaborate on money/education translating to better health or the notion that corporations invest money to make money. Are you sincerely confused by that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You type a lot of words sir/ma'am

I apologize for what seems to be the main miscommunication. appropriately supervised midlevels are fine, but they don't want to stay supervised. I think anyone who wants to take the best care of patients should choose doctor if those are the fields they are considering.

I really don't understand your request to elaborate on money/education translating to better health or the notion that corporations invest money to make money. Are you sincerely confused by that?
Because money means access to higher quality doctors and more accessible care? Why though? If quality health was so accessible for so cheap $50 a month according to you, why the discrepancies? Are you going to say the holy and only factor being that because people are uneducated? Or is there more you aren’t willing to acknowledge?

How are you confuse that midlevel is overall cheaper? Lowering a health providers pay automatically makes the service cheaper? And cheaper means more economical, more economical means more accessible? Why do you care what they want? They are providing the same quality of care whether they are supervised or not.

Then you say it’s morally wrong for midlevels to practice? How can you say less quality of care is morally wrong when higher quality care is not accessible? So in our society no one should get anything unless it’s too of the line and only if you can pay for it right?

But now you say midlevels are fine but also morally wrong? That’s a paradox.
 
Last edited:
Because money means access to higher quality doctors and care? Why though? If quality health was so accessible for so cheap $50 a month according to you, why the discrepancies? Are you going to say the holy and only factor being that because people are uneducated? Or is there more you aren’t willing to acknowledge?

How are you confuse that midlevel is overall cheaper? Lowering a health providers pay automatically makes the service cheaper? And cheaper means accessible? Why do you care what they want? They are providing the same quality of care whether they are supervised or not.

Then you say it’s morally wrong for midlevels to practice? How can you say less quality of care is morally wrong when higher quality care is not accessible? So in our society no one should get anything unless it’s too of the line and only if you can pay for it right? No one should ever have a phone because they aren’t as good at the new one so unless you can afford the new iPhone X you can’t have one?

But now you say midlevels are fine but also morally wrong? That’s a paradox.
The cost I mentioned gets you to the doctor. Education and money means you can afford better food, better meds, moroe money for a gym and time to go and more likely to know about healthy habits.

They are not providing the same level of care independently vs appropriately supervised.

No, no one should get things they don't pay for (unless voluntarily given through charity)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The cost I mentioned gets you to the doctor. Education and money means you can afford better food, better meds, moroe money for a gym and time to go and more likely to know about healthy habits.

They are not providing the same level of care independently vs appropriately supervised.

No, no one should get things they don't pay for (unless voluntarily given through charity)
And are you aware of the barriers to education? Are you suggesting poorer people are dumb therefore can't get good jobs? So doctors don't do anything to help fix health outcomes, education fixes all of these problems? What good is a doctor if you can never see them? Money could also means good insurance which means better doctors, high priority appointments, more access. Why are employees so concerned about getting their healthcare insurance covered by their employers? Hmm. When $50 heals all sickness and does the trick? Hmm.

I have never once had a physician in the room while I was getting diagnosed by midlevel. Many, many people will attest to this. So this is all in your imagination and how you justify their care being equal to that of yours.

Lololol okay then.... If you are saying healthcare should only be given to those who can afford it I think our conversation is over. You are a horrible person.
 
Last edited:
And are you aware of the barriers to education? But money also means good insurance which means better doctors, high priority appointments. Why are employees so concerned about getting their healthcare insurance covered by their employers? Hmm. When $50 heals all sickness and does the trick? Hmm.

I have never once had a physician in the room while I was getting diagnosed by midlevel. Many, many people will attest to this. So this is all in your imagination and how you justify their care being equal to that of yours.

Lololol okay then.... If you are saying healthcare should only be given to those who can afford it I think our conversation is over. You are a horrible person.
that went roughly as I predicted. carry on
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
that went roughly as I predicted. carry on
If you think poor people should just die you should have just said from the beginning. Would have saved a lot of time. But yes, carry on.
 
Well that was fun.
It always amazes me when people don’t know how much they don’t know.

Hmmm, if I were too guess, OP is actually an NP who wrote a script for his/herself, the pharmacist questioned it (most likely for every good reason), and so the op decided to come here and bash pharmacists.



Most doctors choose to operate on a network private insurance and not take Medicare..? I don’t think I need to go further on the implications of that. You’re out of touch.

Most? I don't think so, "most" patients have either medicare or medicaid. Working people with insurance are generally healthy and don't see the doctor that often.....chronically sick people with lots of medical issues, the ones who see the doctor all the time, have Medicare or Medicaid. Physicians who only take private insurance, or cash, are far and few between, because there aren't a lot of patients for them.
 
Hmmm, if I were too guess, OP is actually an NP who wrote a script for his/herself, the pharmacist questioned it (most likely for every good reason), and so the op decided to come here and bash pharmacists.





Most? I don't think so, "most" patients have either medicare or medicaid. Working people with insurance are generally healthy and don't see the doctor that often.....chronically sick people with lots of medical issues, the ones who see the doctor all the time, have Medicare or Medicaid. Physicians who only take private insurance, or cash, are far and few between, because there aren't a lot of patients for them.
Well see if you have the same stance and how you hold up when you statistically lose your job/insurance. We all agree of the decline in economics of pharmacy and the lay-offs are not predictions anymore. Making assumptions like working people are healthier and then correlating that to not needing to use insurance is insane. You can be a careful driver and still get into a car crash. You can do all the right things and still get sick and need insurance coverage to see a doctor.
 
Well see if you have the same stance and how you hold up when you statistically lose your job/insurance. We all agree of the decline in economics of pharmacy and the lay-offs are not predictions anymore. Making assumptions like working people are healthier and then correlating that to not needing to use insurance is insane. You can be a careful driver and still get into a car crash. You can do all the right things and still get sick and need insurance coverage to see a doctor.
Working people actually are healthier, that’s not an assumption
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oh good golly.... Does McDonald’s even sell pickles?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Working people actually are healthier, that’s not an assumption
I'm bored bringing this up again, my prime example of a UTI can lead to serious consequences and affect anyone. It is not caused by being unemployed. Or am I wrong in that statement because only a doctor could know that? Again, another example, if you get into a car crash and needing medical attention is not caused by being unemployed.
 
I'm bored bringing this up again, my prime example of a UTI can lead to serious consequences and affect anyone. It is not caused by being unemployed. Or am I wrong in that statement because only a doctor could know that? Again, another example, if you get into a car crash and needing medical attention is not caused by being unemployed.
Group A includes all of the unemployable disabled, too chronically ill to maintain a job and almost everyone over 65

Group B is working age and healthy enough to maintain employment

Which group is healthier?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Group A includes all of the unemployable disabled, too chronically ill to maintain a job and almost everyone over 65

Group B is working age and healthy enough to maintain employment

Which group is healthier?
Why are you ignoring my examples? I'm healthy enough to be a college student and work but I'm not given coverage. I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. Anyone can become "unhealthy" in a day or an instant. Like a car crash or a UTI or the flu or the chicken pox or a chronic fever. All of these conditions that still allow you to be healthy enough to work. If left untreated can lead to horrible things that could make it so you are unable to work, they should be given immediate medical attention but I know you don't think so if you are poor. So there's no need to talk about that. But surely you know not everyone falls into these two categories? Right? And again, doesn't determine if a person needs health insurance or not as anything can happen any second.

It's convenient that you chose a very selective group of all over the age 65, those who are too chronically ill to work but also the age you qualify for Medicare... There is no topic of discussion or debate that there are a vast number of those who are under the age of 65 with chronically ill conditions most commonly hypertension and diabetes, but are all "healthy" enough to work, however are not provided health insurance. Let's call them Group C.
 
Last edited:
Why are you ignoring my examples? I'm healthy enough to be a college student and work but I'm not given coverage. I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. Anyone can become "unhealthy" in a day or an instant. Like a car crash or a UTI or the flu or the chicken pox or a chronic fever. All of these conditions that still allow you to be healthy enough to work. If left untreated can lead to horrible things that could make it so you are unable to work, they should be given immediate medical attention but I know you don't think so if you are poor. So there's no need to talk about that. But surely you know not everyone falls into these two categories? Right? And again, doesn't determine if a person needs health insurance or not as anything can happen any second.
You are arguing two different points here

Of course the employed can get a UTI or crash their car, no one is arguing that. But you said it was a false assumption that the employed are healthier, they are and you are wrong about that
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not this Midlevel vs physician again. I know many MLs can do probably 75% of the primary care/ER/specialty clinic stuff competently. Its the 25% that they will screw up on and that is why you need an MD supervision. Docs probably make 3-4x more than a midlevel so the question remains is screwing up 25% of the time worth paying 50-75% less?

Medicine like everything else is economics. If MLs can get things right 99% of the time, docs would be out of jobs b/c 3-4x cost is not worth the 1%. But 3-4x cost is definitely worth not screwing up 25% of the time.

The BIG problem for pharmacist is that they do not affect outcome on a daily basis. Truthfully, in retail, how many times in a month do you catch something that really affects outcome without the help of the computer. If the computer catches it, then all you are is a middle man.

Pharmacy will eventually die as a profession. Just like Taxi drivers.

Once Amazon can figure out how to give the public 2 day free prime/same day shipping with just a handful of pharmacists verifying at a central location, then all of the Walgreens/CVS will close down. This is why Amazon is killing all of the malls/retail stores.

Pharmacists also be careful in the hospital. I can't think of many times they have helped me in the ER that I can't look up from Dr. Google.

The only reason I call the pharmacist for advice is if I am too lazy or busy to do my own google search. What is more damning is almost every time I ask them a question, they put me on hold and do their own internet search. If this is their value to hospitals, they better watch our b/c they will be replaced with something cheaper.
I catch things without the computer all the time. Just caught an antibiotic misdose from an infectious disease doc yesterday.

The error was basically they ordered based on the wrong order set for dosing. It didn’t make sense based on the Rx duration of treatment, so I looked at the chart to ensure what it said they were treating was what they were treating. It wasn’t.

If I was paid based on this sort of catch, I would make a lot more than I currently do.

I use the computer to augment my knowledge, but the computer doesn’t catch most of the errors for me at all.

Truth is, you’ve never been a pharmacist and you just assume we don’t add value. That’s an assumption and the studies I’ve seen haven’t validated that assumption.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I catch things without the computer all the time. Just caught an antibiotic misdose from an infectious disease doc yesterday.

The error was basically they ordered based on the wrong order set for dosing. It didn’t make sense based on the Rx duration of treatment, so I looked at the chart to ensure what it said they were treating was what they were treating. It wasn’t.

If I was paid based on this sort of catch, I would make a lot more than I currently do.

I use the computer to augment my knowledge, but the computer doesn’t catch most of the errors for me at all.

Truth is, you’ve never been a pharmacist and you just assume we don’t add value. That’s an assumption and the studies I’ve seen haven’t validated that assumption.
My program has clinical pharmacy integrated with residents and a good pharmacist is gold to a team
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
You are arguing two different points here

Of course the employed can get a UTI or crash their car, no one is arguing that. But you said it was a false assumption that the employed are healthier, they are and you are wrong about that

So a person in a car crash...? A person with diabetes, an overweight individual but still are employed is healthier than an unemployed a pharmD who has had no chronic illness, healthy bmi, or physical injuries.. ? How is employment a determinant to health? You're proving my point lol. You're equating employment to health insurance. And then equating that to higher health outcomes.

or is your argument actually that dumb trying to prove you are right in your question where you grouped everyone under the age of 65 into one group and then those specifically 65 year old and older with chronic illnesses but indicating both had insurance: insurance from work, insurance from Medicare and then tried to argue anything but insurance was the determinant to health such as idk? the effects of employment? there are so many jobs you cant say all working conditions provide health benefits so its either this or you proved my point. idk which one is worse for you.

Group A includes all of the unemployable disabled, too chronically ill to maintain a job and almost everyone over 65

Group B is working age and healthy enough to maintain employment

Which group is healthier?

let me try:
Who healthier? A super old person with chronic illnesses that doesn't work or a young active person that does? HINT: One of them is employed so that's the trick. That's the determent of health. Which one is it?

You entirely left out the group that works have illnesses but do not have healthcare insurance. You wouldn't be able to argue if you acknowledged this group. What about this group? Which one is healthier? A 65 year old with chronic illnesses but with medicare? A healthy 64 year old with insurance from work? Or a 64 year old who with chronic illnesses and works but does not have insurance? Which ones healthier? This one seems like more of a fair comparison.

I refuse to believe you are a physician. You can't be this dumb. I have a very strange feeling everything you've said up till now has been saying literally anything so that you are not wrong lol. You literally sunk down to the level to say dumb people who don't have an education therefore don't have good jobs therefore deserve jobs that don't have health insurance or good money and therefore should not have access to healthcare. Only those who can afford it should have healthcare because those people are smart therefore rich so they deserve it. If that's not a horrible human being, I don't know what is and Tiktok liked it. The two "physicians" on here. The one that cited medscape.

Calling midlevel providers morally wrong and only "adequate" under a physicians super vision but now is gold to the team? hahahahhah. I would love to hear what you have to say for this that's not "you don't know what you're talking about", "sigh you will never understand" lol did you seriously try to "win" or prove something with this

actually plz dont respond.
 
Last edited:
So a person in a car crash...? A person with diabetes, an overweight individual but still are employed is healthier than an unemployed a pharmD who has had no chronic illness, healthy bmi, or physical injuries.. ? How is employment a determinant to health? You're proving my point lol. You're equating employment to health insurance. And then equating that to higher health outcomes.

or is your argument actually that dumb trying to prove you are right in your question where you grouped everyone under the age of 65 into one group and then those specifically 65 year old and older with chronic illnesses but indicating both had insurance: insurance from work, insurance from Medicare and then tried to argue anything but insurance was the determinant to health such as idk? the effects of employment? there are so many jobs you cant say all working conditions provide health benefits so its either this or you proved my point. idk which one is worse for you.



let me try:
Who healthier? A super old person with chronic illnesses that doesn't work or a young active person that does? HINT: One of them is employed so that's the trick. That's the determent of health. Which one is it?

You entirely left out the group that works have illnesses but do not have healthcare insurance. You wouldn't be able to argue if you acknowledged this group. What about this group? Which one is healthier? A 65 year old with chronic illnesses but with medicare? A healthy 64 year old with insurance from work? Or a 64 year old who with chronic illnesses and works but does not have insurance? Which ones healthier? This one seems like more of a fair comparison.

I refuse to believe you are a physician. You can't be this dumb. I have a very strange feeling everything you've said up till now has been saying literally anything so that you are not wrong lol. You literally sunk down to the level to say dumb people who don't have an education therefore don't have good jobs therefore deserve jobs that don't have health insurance or good money and therefore should not have access to healthcare. Only those who can afford it should have healthcare because those people are smart therefore rich so they deserve it. If that's not a horrible human being, I don't know what is and Tiktok liked it. The two "physicians" on here. The one that cited medscape.

Calling midlevel providers morally wrong and only "adequate" under a physicians super vision but now is gold to the team? hahahahhah. I would love to hear what you have to say for this that's not "you don't know what you're talking about", "sigh you will never understand" lol did you seriously try to "win" or prove something with this

actually plz dont respond.
You are conflating an individual vs a population. The population of the employed is as a group healthier than the unemployed
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Hmmm. All children are unemployed, correct? And the vast majority would be considered healthy although some of course are not. OTOH many seniors are unemployed and often have health issues although some of course do not. Then there are all the unemployed people in-between that likely have the full range of healthinesses.

I am actually curious if this "unemployed people are less healthy" idea is valid or not. When you factor in the millions of healthy unemployed children I suspect it is not.

EDIT: Or are we using a more BLS type definition of unemployed where you leave out children, people who have left the workforce, etc?
 
I think mid-level providers are of value and have a place in health care. I would say pharmacists with this heavy clinical curriculum could execute this role as well. For example diagnosing the flu, allergies, diabetes, and working at urgent care facilities. But pharmacists have too much of a heavy place in retail making advocating for this role harder and nurses actually have organizations trying to expand their roles. I believe NPs have beat pharmacist to the punch in this provider status regard. I would trust a mid-level provider's patient practices if they are similar to what I've endured during school. But again, my main goal is to have a job to fufill the bottom of my hierarchy of needs. Everything else is secondary. At a pharmacy student drop outs stakes, everything is too uncertain to be thinking about the deep morality of the profession. Everything will have its ups and down, I would argue retail pharmacy is not that ethical either. A pharmacist should be trying to pump out scripts as fast as she can, but she has too.

The problem with saying a Pharmacist can independently treat allergies/diabetes/etc is that while you may know drugs that could work for these ailments, pharmacists aren't trained in the diagnostic skills to actually reach that conclusion. Does the patient have allergies or do they have hypersensitivity pneumonitis? Or do they have nasopharyngeal carcinoma with EBV? There's a lot more that at least NPs gain exposure to while being hands on with patients in a hospital as nurses to know when something is very wrong and needs a Physician ASAP. They train for many years in clinical exposure. I can't say the same for pharmacists, minus the ones who go on to do Residencies in hospitals
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hmmm. All children are unemployed, correct? And the vast majority would be considered healthy although some of course are not. OTOH many seniors are unemployed and often have health issues although some of course do not. Then there are all the unemployed people in-between that likely have the full range of healthinesses.

I am actually curious if this "unemployed people are less healthy" idea is valid or not. When you factor in the millions of healthy unemployed children I suspect it is not.

EDIT: Or are we using a more BLS type definition of unemployed where you leave out children, people who have left the workforce, etc?
I was speaking of adults in which point I would stand by my thought

But if we include kids (good point by the way) I may actually be wrong
 
I was speaking of adults in which point I would stand by my thought

But if we include kids (good point by the way) I may actually be wrong

Out of curiosity I did a quick google search and it seems you are right. Unemployed people are at greater risk for having health issues, including mental health which I hadn't thought of. It seems like poverty is the biggest cofactor, which is pretty obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The problem with saying a Pharmacist can independently treat allergies/diabetes/etc is that while you may know drugs that could work for these ailments, pharmacists aren't trained in the diagnostic skills to actually reach that conclusion. Does the patient have allergies or do they have hypersensitivity pneumonitis? Or do they have nasopharyngeal carcinoma with EBV? There's a lot more that at least NPs gain exposure to while being hands on with patients in a hospital as nurses to know when something is very wrong and needs a Physician ASAP. They train for many years in clinical exposure. I can't say the same for pharmacists, minus the ones who go on to do Residencies in hospitals
There are now direct NP programs, they no longer all have years of RN experience
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 2 users
Can both of you stop. Yeah a $50 PCD that I’ll get to see in the next month because they are booked af. No appointments for emergencies. Why are most doctors on private insurances? Why do most of doctors not take Medicare? Because all of you are out of touch and don’t care about the poor.

Lol. Get off your own egos and admit there are barriers to health care that mid level providers provide. There’s a boom in demand. But yeah just keep ignoring those facts because I know it invalidates your status, pay, and profession making you guys not bias at all that’s why the argument always keeps returning to “its harder than it seems”. Midlevels are more economical and the demand proves they are effective. Or keep ignoring it and go to medscape.com instead BLS. Are doctors not taught how to find reliable sources...?

But do go on how NPs/PAs can’t help me with a TB test, UTI, flu because it’s harder than it seems and you are obviously so concerned about everyone’s well-being right? That’s why both of you guys work for 100k right? If you guys are actually doctors.

Would you say to me I did the right thing for waiting a week/month to see a doctor for a UTI than to go to urgent care/minute clinic?

I’m seriously wondering what your answers are for this because I’m starting to speculate that you are to say yes.

Addition to this how would you explain the discrepancies in health in POC and poorer individuals? Also your stance on minute clinics and urgent care? Because tiktok never ever used one before therefore thinks it’s useless. So I’m just wondering why you think bullion dollar corporations are investing in these? Also if you honestly think health outcomes are more negative either the practice of mid level? What do you believe this demand means?

It’d be cool if you guys quit dodging my questions and citing medscape. Lol. Let me guess. I have no idea what I’m talking about right? Crazy how many things I don’t know? I’d still like your opinion on all of my questions though. I’m genuinely curious on what I don’t know and your perspective on the trends.

McPickle, I don't think you realize something. No one here hates midlevels. One of the biggest problems in healthcare today isn't the proliferation of NPs and PAs, and just because there are a ton of them doesn't mean they're going to replace physicians. One of the biggest problems and the cost of healthcare is the fragmentation of healthcare, which you yourself seem to actually be promoting. We have moved away from the "PCP is the hub of all your patient needs" and moved into a "Gimme gimme" society of people who want something right away, hence the overuse of the ED and urgent care. You think that an NP or PA can treat a UTI and that's a good and dandy, and yes, they can. But I'd much rather the NP working with my FM Physician giving me that drug because now if I ever have a problem in the future, they have on record what exactly worked in the past or what to avoid in the future. PAs and NPs are increasing in demand because theyre cheap to hire, but it doesn't change the scope of what theyre doing and when they need to refer to their physician counterpart. Hiring NPs and PAs also makes it so you don't need to wait a month to get a visit with your PCP. Honestly, I don't know where y'all live, but if I call my physicians office they can see me 100% same-day or next day. Maybe you should all try getting a better Doctor who you can have a good relationship with or stop trying to live where theres 15,000,000 people within a 4 mile radius, cities are overrated, and probably why you can't see a Family physician for a month out ;).

Smart people know they should go to their physician for their problems because something innocuous can be something bigger. Just like how smart people buy in bulk on a budget. Less informed individuals go to Urgent Cares, get treated for something, don't tell anyone else, wind up in their physicians office, take something else, and end up having some crazy drug-drug interaction that winds them up in the ED. A simple 15$ copay and an antibiotic suddenly becomes a 2500$ ED visit. Which is exactly why we need higher quality practitioners and less quantity practitioners, which is something you said earlier just because it'll all be "automated"... lol
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Did u seriously use the argument

There’s nothing wrong with healthcare just move outside a city


HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahgahgahhahahahgahhaahaggaggaghhh. If you are telling people you need to move outside a city to receive healthcare you are spewing garbage out of your mouth. Smart people know to go to doctors. If you can’t comprehend that healthcare is a commodity, you are not smart. Just saying. I think we can all say Mary Antinonette was an out of touch. And her question, why not eat cake? She sounded very stupid. You guys sound so stupid. You literally suggesting moving outside a city. To. Receive. Healthcare. Because. Cities. Are. Overrated. You. Guys. Omfg. And the doctors liked it!!! Hahahahahahaahahaa yeah you’re right, health should be reserved for those only in rural areas. Nothing wrong with the structure. Not that millions of doctors are only on private insurance or anything right. It’s your location. Wow. Your analysis is very well thought out.

Also uhhhhh the Ron Swanson”Doctor” and the medscape one deft imply midlevels don’t know what they are doing and implied they are morally wrong for practicing

So your very first sentence I would argue is wrong. But go ahead and ignore that for your next post.

How old are y’all? Boomers? Look. I’m in engineering. Idk why my opinion hurt all of y’all so much and you guys selective take points of my argument or can’t comprehend that there are layers of infrastructure that cause barriers to health but can be fixed if I move?? Those things are so easy to do right? Picking up and moving? Finding a job? All of this so that I can get HEALTHCARE. I can’t believe how stupid you have to be to say that.

You can’t ignore discrepancies but “doctor” Ron said it was because education. No other factor. If you guys think health insurance is not a deterrent of health, Idk what else to say. You guys are just seeing what you want to see.


Some are online! Oh no!!! Not like you can learn things that you learned from a book from the internet!! Boomer right?

It’s just my prediction that midlevel will rise strictly by the numbers. Midlevels will take over general health and then doctors will be reserved for specialties and surgery. It’s a valid conclusion in my opinion. Don’t have to go as far to say things that sound extremely ignorant to try to convince me otherwise. I’m just reading the numbers. Demand is demand. They both have 30% rising. Economic value will win ever time. No need to stoop as low to say stupid things like, you need to move or else you don’t deserve healthcare or healthcare should be reserved for those who can afford it. I get it. You guys conveniently ignore everything.

Good day y’all.

Do you have anything better to do? Hobbies? Something....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Did u seriously use the argument

There’s nothing wrong with healthcare just move outside a city


HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahgahgahhahahahgahhaahaggaggaghhh. If you are telling people you need to move outside a city to receive healthcare you are spewing garbage out of your mouth. Smart people know to go to doctors. If you can’t comprehend that healthcare is a commodity, you are not smart. Just saying. I think we can all say Mary Antinonette was an out of touch. And her question, why not eat cake? She sounded very stupid. You guys sound so stupid. You literally suggesting moving outside a city. To. Receive. Healthcare. Because. Cities. Are. Overrated. You. Guys. Omfg. And the doctors liked it!!! Hahahahahahaahahaa yeah you’re right, health should be reserved for those only in rural areas. Nothing wrong with the structure. Not that millions of doctors are only on private insurance or anything right. It’s your location. Wow. Your analysis is very well thought out.

Also uhhhhh the Ron Swanson”Doctor” and the medscape one deft imply midlevels don’t know what they are doing and implied they are morally wrong for practicing

So your very first sentence I would argue is wrong.

How old are y’all? Boomers? Look. I’m in engineering. Idk why my opinion hurt all of y’all so much and you guys selective take points of my argument or can’t comprehend that there are layers of infrastructure that cause barriers to health but can be fixed if I move right?? I can’t believe how stupid you have to be to say that.

You can’t ignore discrepancies but “doctor” Ron said it was because education. No other factor. If you guys think health insurance is not a deterrent of health, Idk what else to say. You guys are just seeing what you want to see.


Some are online! Oh no!!! Not like you can learn things that you learned from a book from the internet!! Boomer right?

It’s just my prediction that midlevel will rise strictly by the numbers. Midlevels will take over general health and then doctors will be reserved for specialties and surgery. It’s a valid conclusion in my opinion. Don’t have to go as far to say things that sound extremely ignorant to try to convince me otherwise. I’m just reading the numbers. Demand is demand. They both have 30% rising.

Good day y’all.

Im a millenial... not a boomer... but thanks. Cities are actually saturated with Doctors, so it's a tough market to break into. So when I said perhaps not living in a city, it was more of a joke about the fact that you're competing with millions of people for a Doctor. Theres 1.2 million physicians in the US, and there's 12,000,000 people in NYC Alone. So yeah, you reap what you sew... long wait times at airports, on subways, higher grocery prices, etc etc. But no, that was not the point of my post, but thank you for showing us all your maturity with this post that is ridden with grammar mistakes and a strawman argument that honed in on a single aspect of everything I said (How hypocritical of you).

I never said health insurance wasn't a deterrent for people accessing care, but you're acting like a conspiracy theorist who thinks physicians are controlling everything to keep the general public down and without healthcare. No, there is a major bottleneck effect with residencies, which results in less physicians, and longer wait times. Physicians are just as much at the whim of insurers and what they're willing to reimburse and decide who gets treatment. I'm sure all physicians would actually love if everyone had healthcare so they didn't have to beat around the bush for things we know the patient should get, but couldn't afford.

NPs and PAs serve their purpose to try and lower wait times - so prissy little internet trolls like you don't have to wait a month to get your boo boo looked at. Hence why they're being hired all over. Perhaps you should find a Doctors office with a couple.

Also, if you're in engineering, why don't you go on engineering forums?

Do you even have a solution? You just blow up on internet forums for a job that you don't even have, but offer no solutions to the problem. Is it Medicare4All that you want? Are you all riled up after listening to all the Democratic candidates circle jerk each other off on stage spouting the joys and dreams of a beautiful land we call America? Grow up, even if it passes and everyone dances through rainbows to their physicians office there will just be 1000 other problems that it leads to - I'm not saying it's not an admirable goal, but if you think it's going to be this magical fix-all to the healthcare of America, you're so wrong.

Americans innately have one of the most unhealthy cultures on the planet. And until ~70% of our population ISN'T overweight/obese/on 5-6 chronic medications, healthcare will be an enormous burden we will NEVER be able to pay for efficiently.

So why don't you go engineer a fat loss machine for us so we can all use healthcare services less, and lets leave who should be practicing healthcare to accreditation and licensing bodies, you know, so you can ensure the population stays safe the best they can by creating standards of education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Im a millenial... not a boomer... but thanks. Cities are actually saturated with Doctors, so it's a tough market to break into. So when I said perhaps not living in a city, it was more of a joke about the fact that you're competing with millions of people for a Doctor. Theres 1.2 million physicians in the US, and there's 12,000,000 people in NYC Alone. So yeah, you reap what you sew... long wait times at airports, on subways, higher grocery prices, etc etc. But no, that was not the point of my post, but thank you for showing us all your maturity with this post that is ridden with grammar mistakes and a strawman argument that honed in on a single aspect of everything I said (How hypocritical of you).

I never said health insurance wasn't a deterrent for people accessing care, but you're acting like a conspiracy theorist who thinks physicians are controlling everything to keep the general public down and without healthcare. No, there is a major bottleneck effect with residencies, which results in less physicians, and longer wait times. Physicians are just as much at the whim of insurers and what they're willing to reimburse and decide who gets treatment. I'm sure all physicians would actually love if everyone had healthcare so they didn't have to beat around the bush for things we know the patient should get, but couldn't afford.

NPs and PAs serve their purpose to try and lower wait times - so prissy little internet trolls like you don't have to wait a month to get your boo boo looked at. Hence why they're being hired all over. Perhaps you should find a Doctors office with a couple.

Also, if you're in engineering, why don't you go on engineering forums?

Do you even have a solution? You just blow up on internet forums for a job that you don't even have, but offer no solutions to the problem. Is it Medicare4All that you want? Are you all riled up after listening to all the Democratic candidates circle jerk each other off on stage spouting the joys and dreams of a beautiful land we call America? Grow up, even if it passes and everyone dances through rainbows to their physicians office there will just be 1000 other problems that it leads to - I'm not saying it's not an admirable goal, but if you think it's going to be this magical fix-all to the healthcare of America, you're so wrong.

Americans innately have one of the most unhealthy cultures on the planet. And until ~70% of our population ISN'T overweight/obese/on 5-6 chronic medications, healthcare will be an enormous burden we will NEVER be able to pay for efficiently.

So why don't you go engineer a fat loss machine for us so we can all use healthcare services less, and lets leave who should be practicing healthcare to accreditation and licensing bodies, you know, so you can ensure the population stays safe the best they can by creating standards of education.
You acknowledge the premise for Medicare4all. And that it would make it illegal for doctors to practice on private insurance? Doctors want to get paid more. I understand. Everyone does. So they will limit their patients to ones who can afford top dollar? So if you know the stance of Medicare for all then you are acknowledging barriers to health. That are put up by doctors themselves whether you want to believe it or not. Idk why you’re mad that poor people want health care. Idk why you’re mad that poor people can’t get access and the next best thing are mid level professionals. Idk why trying something new makes you mad.

Get your story straight. Doctor Ron said that employed people are healthier, then you said 70%~of people are riddled with chronic illnesses. I didn’t know 70% of the population were unemployed as Doctor Swanson has stated. Midlevels provide care at a fraction of what doctors do????????? Is that not lowering costs so that healthcare can be paid for more efficiently????????????????? What???????????? LOL.

We get it. You don’t think poor people should have healthcare and should just die.
 
Last edited:
You acknowledge the premise for Medicare4all. So then you are acknowledging barriers to health. Idk why you’re mad that poor people want health care. Idk why you’re mad that poor people can’t get access and the next best thing are mid level professionals. Idk why trying something new makes you mad.

Get your story straight. Doctor Ron said that employed people are healthier, then you said 70%~of people are riddled with chronic illnesses. I didn’t know 70% of the population were unemployed as Doctor Swanson has stated. Midlevels provide care at a fraction of what doctors do????????? Is that not lowering costs so that healthcare can be paid for more efficiently????????????????? What???????????? LOL.

We get it. You don’t think poor people should have healthcare and should just die.

Did I ever say that? I literally said NPs and PAs are being utilized to help lower wait times so more people can be seen. When did I say poor people should not have healthcare? Why are you combining what other people say into one argument and retorting back to one person?

But, since you keep touting that midlevels provide healthcare at a fraction of the cost, why don't you only see midlevels from now? Request to only see the PA everywhere you go. Clearly because they can hand out antibiotics (which honestly might not even be the right ones in some cases) - they can do it all. Honestly a bit offensive lol. But anyways I'm done talking to you since this is going around in circles and has now lead to an ethical debate about who deserves healthcare.

But go on, keep thinking Physicians have any actual say in who gets healthcare, and keep propagating the idea that we're evil malicious people who want poor people to die. Because we're all making 20 million a year denying everyone else coverage. Yep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Did I ever say that? I literally said NPs and PAs are being utilized to help lower wait times so more people can be seen. When did I say poor people should not have healthcare? Why are you combining what other people say into one argument and retorting back to one person?

But, since you keep touting that midlevels provide healthcare at a fraction of the cost, why don't you only see midlevels from now? Request to only see the PA everywhere you go. Clearly because they can hand out antibiotics (which honestly might not even be the right ones in some cases) - they can do it all. Honestly a bit offensive lol. But anyways I'm done talking to you since this is going around in circles and has now lead to an ethical debate about who deserves healthcare.

But go on, keep thinking Physicians have any actual say in who gets healthcare, and keep propagating the idea that we're evil malicious people who want poor people to die. Because we're all making 20 million a year denying everyone else coverage. Yep.

NP/PA Seeing more people = more healthcare at a lower cost. More economical. Plain and simple. Economics and money win so if the math has come down to it’s expensive to train a physician, there will be a rise in demand in mid level. Bottom line. Idk why you ignore this. Do you see a pharmD in demand more than a Rph? No. Because the cost of a 8 year pharmD does not outweigh its worth in outputs vs a 5 year Rph. Did you not take a economics class?

Medicare4all would make it illegal of doctors to practice on private insurance.

Insurance = money. Did I not already say that I’ve been treated by mid level effectively and it was all I could afford/have access to? Aka a minute clinic. (It’s weird that you guys don’t count transportation as a barrier.) That’s why you brought up the moving out of a city thing so that I could go see a doctor? (The NYC has ~8 million, so NYC does not have 12million alone). Your statement of “just move” literally equates to telling a person in third world counties to just “move” to first world. “Why are all of these third world country people complaining about no healthcare when they can just move to a country with healthcare? Lol they dumb. Me smart”

I’ll take the hit of getting a more broad spectrum antibiotics than that super selective one for my UTI. It’s fine, at least I get one. Dentists prescribe antibiotics left and right. I would say less people would die taking any antibiotic than none for a bacterial infection.

I’m sure you know about the discrepancies in health for poorer people. Acknowledging that more money = better care/health already means less money = less quality care/health.

But yeah go ahead about how NP/PAs are so offensive to you. So if NP/PA = less cost therefore more access that will go to the poor. Yes poor people will get less quality of care unless doctors lower their salaries. Which won’t happen so they do have a say. I don’t blame them for not taking a pay cut. So you taking offense to midlevels prescribing antibiotics is ludicrous and therefore saying that no care is better than any care. Any care = poorer people. Therefore saying poorer people should not have care.

Did a medical student just say "don't have to wait a month to get your boo boo looked at. Hence why they're being hired all over. ". If you're taking healthcare and assess to medications this lightly. I didn't know someone with a UTI that doesn't get it looked at it for a month is considered a "boo boo". I don't know. You're also a horrible person.
 
Last edited:
Did I ever say that? I literally said NPs and PAs are being utilized to help lower wait times so more people can be seen. When did I say poor people should not have healthcare? Why are you combining what other people say into one argument and retorting back to one person?

But, since you keep touting that midlevels provide healthcare at a fraction of the cost, why don't you only see midlevels from now? Request to only see the PA everywhere you go. Clearly because they can hand out antibiotics (which honestly might not even be the right ones in some cases) - they can do it all. Honestly a bit offensive lol. But anyways I'm done talking to you since this is going around in circles and has now lead to an ethical debate about who deserves healthcare.

But go on, keep thinking Physicians have any actual say in who gets healthcare, and keep propagating the idea that we're evil malicious people who want poor people to die. Because we're all making 20 million a year denying everyone else coverage. Yep.
The sdn ignore function is SWEET. Took me a min to figure out
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Top