- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 17,939
- Reaction score
- 23,633
I feel like I should grab some popcorn as this turf war rages down several tangentially related rabbit holes.
You are terrible at data. Reminds me of your earlier claim that a military readiness report and you not personally having heard of adverse effects in NM/LA (not true anyway) = data. How is the % of AMA's spending, of which psychiatry is a small part, going to the issue of RxP the same as the % of the APA's spending? How can you purposefully not include APAPO's spending? Common sense alone dictates that the medical community has many other things to worry about besides RxPers wanting a shortcut to practice medicine.They were required to create a separate PAC, just like every other non-profit organization who wants to lobby because it is illegal to be a non-profit and directly lobby; the gov't would revoke non-profit status of any organization that doesn't distinctly separate those activities. Yes there are ways to "lobby" without meeting the current definition, and the AMA does an excellent job of toeing that line and maximizing the benefits.
As for the rest of it, your math doesn't make sense, someone's "annual budget" does not equal the $ spent lobbying, so please stop distorting the information. The data I cited is non-partisan and references actual $'s spent…not budgets.
You keep saying someone is "mis-characterizing", making "straw men" or making "ad hominems" and each and every time I have to explain to you that's not the case. In this case- how is pointing out that comparing AMA spending to APA spending completely ridiculous an "ad hominem"? In your paranoid "turf management" view of the world you're imaging physicians spending globs of time and money to put down RxP Psychologists. They don't consider you (RxPers) any more than they do a myriad of other non-medical practitioners trying to practice medicine through politics- which includes pharmacists, optometrists and even chiropractors.Apparently the terribleness at data runs abound. APAPO also has many other things to worry about than turf management by MD's (e.g., SGR, mental health access act, PQRS registry issues, etc). These are listed along with financials. Ad hominems are fun though. We should just continue along with those, they will surely decide this issue once and for all.
I wasn't the one listing unrelated monetary figures and calling it meaningful data, was I? You have an VERY ironic penchant for accusing anybody who disagrees with RxP of a fallacy of relevance (ad hominem, red herring, straw man, etc. whatever else you can think of).Name calling is directly an ad hominem, and it's been done countless times, even within the past few days. Especially when you make those claims with no data to support your argument. Do you know exactly how much was spent by each side on that one issue? Also, you can pretend turn management doesn't exist, doesn't make it any less real. We all deal with the issue, some of just have bigger war chests with which to defend that turf. And some choose to protect that turf with politics instead of objective data.
1. I'm going to have to strongly disagree!Someone brought up lobbying money, and meaningful monetary figures were supplied. Seemed fairly simple. As far as logical fallacies go, if the shoe fits... most of your arguments just happen to be putting words into people's mouths and insinuating hidden motivations.
So as a psychologist, presumably very well-trained in research, you believe this:Disagree away. Turf is a great word, probably not my favorite though. As a favorite, I'm going to go with chamois.
is meaningful data that physicians out-spend psychologists in regards to RxP?2014 Lobbying $'s spent:
AMA: $19,650,000
APA: $1,298,600
is meaningful data that physicians out-spend psychologists in regards to RxP?
I honestly haven't looked at/don't know how much they've spent, particularly in the states where legislation as failed, but I can say that as a whole, psychology generally has a pretty crappy track record of funding political efforts on behalf of our profession. It seems to be getting better, though, so maybe I'm wrong re: RxP specifically. And I do know APA has sunk a considerable amount of resources into this over the years, yes.
That's true in my experience. I've seen that APA has spent vast sums of money lobbying for RxP, far more than for any other issue. In my state they have thrown money at this and nothing else. In the last year or two they sent over at least $120,000 for a bill that was worse than a failure. I agree that it would be extremely interesting to know just how much is spent on other issues in comparison. Good luck getting them to face this.
When Illinois psychologists needed help with parity problems with insurance companies, APA's response was to write a letter. Whoop-tee-doo. A letter. As opposed to $120,000 for RxP's platoon of lobbyists.
When trying to help get RxP into Ontario, Canada, (which has failed) a delegation of APA bigwigs found the time and money to fly up there and meet with them. We have never seen any of those people come to Illinois for any reason.
You say it's getting better, and I would welcome that, but I haven't seen APA spend anything close to the amount of money they have poured down the RxP rathole. RxP continues to be a massive failure across the country, and the disproportionate influence that RxPers have over APA politics ensures that they will continue to throw their money away rather than start working on helping psychologists.
Sure. Don't spend it all though- diversify your financial portfolio with something more likely to "pay out" than RxP- like lottery tickets.I'm just going to donate to an rxp initiative whenever there is an asinine argument. I'm on a roll financially right now. Should be fun.
*This money coming from forensics, which pays 2-2.57 times better than RxP pursuits.
SSHHHH!!!I'm just going to donate to an rxp initiative whenever there is an asinine argument. I'm on a roll financially right now. Should be fun.
*This money coming from forensics, which pays 2-2.57 times better than RxP pursuits.
Hmmm. So are you saying that psychologists are billing less than what we could? If so, then all the more reason to not get RxP as that would lend credence to the argument that we aren't smart enough to learn how to prescribe safely.I have spoken to some national billing people, and the overall consensus seems to be that psychologists' hourly rates are not consistent with the market valuation. But third party payors are happy to accept $110/hr when their valuation puts it higher.
Think of it like selling a car. You want 5k for a POS. Guy comes to look at it and offers 9k.
Holy long-form Batman! You don't need to sell me on the APA's past shortcomings. If you've read some of my past comments, in other threads than this, you'd know that I gave up my membership some time ago for various reasons. I do think there have been improvements as of late, but I'm still not ready to jump back in until things get resolved. I would still say that some of the language is quite hyperbolic though. And, as we know as psychologists, has the opposite of intended effect, only makes those with the opposing viewpoint hold that viewpoint more strongly.
I still think it detracts from your message, I feel like I'm reading about Jade Helm 15 at times. Also, needing to separate some of this animosity on tangential issues. I don't think an organization handling on one issue, makes every issue they take a stance on somehow bad. For example, they also campaigned on the SGR and related issues, should we pan those efforts because of the torture debacle? Just got to keep things consistent. Also, still curious as to where some of the numbers come from.
I am not a big fan of the APA and am on the fence about RxP, but I think that conflating the two issues weakens your arguments. In other words, I could hate APA for the reasons that you listed and for many others, but still be a strong supporter of RxP for many other reasons or vice versa. Actually, I think that how the APA handles RxP is support of the argument "APA bad" but it doesn't work so well the other way. RxP is bad because APA supports it and APA is bad.True, my language can be harsh at times. However, I don't think it exceeds the magnitude of what has been done, and continues to be done.
I still cannot get my head around what an extraordinary thing it was for so many people in APA, over a decade, to lie to the entire membership in a clear-cut instance of fraud and to adopt the Code of Silence so completely. I have seen how RxP advocates do things that were extraordinarily unethical and dishonest, people who have high positions in this profession. These people knew what they were doing in the torture scandal was unacceptable to members and the public. The PENS report that gave ethical cover to the CIA was published without the names of the task force members on it. During the meetings they told members they could not take notes of the proceedings.
The scandals continue. The APA leadership has done everything it can to block any information about the torture issue, and the organization has attacked, stonewalled and dismissed any thoughtful questions about what they have done. Only when the Senate Intelligence Committee started to release some information it had, did APA realize that they could no longer stonewall the psychologists who questioned this, and the investigative reporters uncovering evidence of their deeds. Now they've fallen back on hiring an investigator, who will report back to APA's leadership - who have not committed themselves to releasing that report. The investigator may be honest, but even then the information he reveals will be held and used by APA's leadership as it sees fit.
The APA has never admitted that it lied to the membership in the practice assessment scandal, even though the evidence is overwhelming. There are recovered APA website web pages from multiple years showing that APA said all licensed psychologists "must" pay the fee or that the fee is "applied" in the cases of licensed mental health professionals. And yet they play a cynical game of denying it rather than do the right thing, admit that this happened in the past, and move on.
And as I have noted many times, APA continues to run the RxP campaign without the consensus and oftentimes without the knowledge of the members, including those paying the very high bill for this massive failure. APA continues to issue what is quite literally propaganda - the management of information for political purposes - about RxP, among other topics.
This is an organization that was once great, the organization of William James, for example. And it has been dragged into the gutter and kept there. Strong language may be off-putting to some, but I think it is accurate.
I am not a big fan of the APA and am on the fence about RxP, but I think that conflating the two issues weakens your arguments. In other words, I could hate APA for the reasons that you listed and for many others, but still be a strong supporter of RxP for many other reasons or vice versa. Actually, I think that how the APA handles RxP is support of the argument "APA bad" but it doesn't work so well the other way. RxP is bad because APA supports it and APA is bad.
The main reason I am against RxP is that I believe that psychotherapy is more effective in a wide variety of cases and I think that psychologists are well positioned to maintain their status as the experts in psychotherapy and pursuing RxP would detract from that. The main reasons I would be for RxP is that I think I might be able to do a better job helping my patients if I had access to that tool and I might make more money.
When you say RxP is bad because of the details of the proposal then you are going from a general to a specific. I am thinking what you mean is that the APA proposal for RxP is a bad idea because of many reasons you have elaborated previously. The second point seems to be that you believe RxP in any form is a bad idea. Why do you think incorporating medicine into psychology is a bad idea? I actually think that we should learn more biology and biochemistry, but biology (more than biochemistry) has always been an interest of mine and that was my first major so I might be biased that way.Or, RxP is a bad idea because of the details of the proposal and the effect of incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology. The campaign is a bad idea because it required to employ questionable tactics to support a proposition so inherently flawed. APA is mismanaged and RxP is an example of that. There are other examples.
When you say RxP is bad because of the details of the proposal then you are going from a general to a specific. I am thinking what you mean is that the APA proposal for RxP is a bad idea because of many reasons you have elaborated previously. The second point seems to be that you believe RxP in any form is a bad idea. Why do you think incorporating medicine into psychology is a bad idea? I actually think that we should learn more biology and biochemistry, but biology (more than biochemistry) has always been an interest of mine and that was my first major so I might be biased that way.
Of course, incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology will damage the mission, image and professional identity of our profession.
If we practice a little psychiatric medicine, why not also a little endocrinology? Or a little gynecology? Or drill some teeth, or examine eyes?
Of course you have a citation….
Do you know where I've heard this argument before…from people against gay marriage. "If we allow this one thing that has been show to be beneficial in society, God only knows what "those people" would do next. " The proponents would cite people wanting to marry 20 people, their livestock, and other equally asinine things in an attempt to derail the actual issue at hand. Did they have proof of these things happening…not one shred, but *boogie man*. I find your example to be equally as relevant.
Speaking of citations, I'm still curious about those numbers.
What numbers were you interested in? If the sources are available I'll let you know. However, it should also be stated that I don't have much patience with people who bring no actual facts to the table. I haven't seen any such data from those who disagree with me, just more demands for citations, expect me to run around gathering answers to their questions, and think that making speculative comments without substance or support is a form of debate.
I was interested in the money figures being thrown around. And, I totally agree about the lack of data. My question about data has been summarily ignored in the past. I can only assume for lack of it existing after attempts to track it down myself
Another concern is that the mountains of money available will corrupt psychologists individually and organizations.
Makes sense. If you don't allow non-medical practitioners to practice medicine you are condoning trepanning and lobotomies......ok...no.Viva La Status Quo! Because healthcare should never change! Back to trephination and frontal lobotomies!