ChiDO

10+ Year Member
Apr 16, 2008
1,236
235
281
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I've seen a few of my classmates jump the sinking ship of Hope & Change they boarded 2 years ago with the recent health care bills.

But I completely agree with the article and how data/facts are always manipulated for the argument one is trying to pose. Fortunately, my school hasn't done this.
 
Apr 28, 2009
101
1
0
Status
Medical Student
The point of sicko was to get rid of private insurance. We would then spend less on healthcare and/or provide increased health coverage. Everyone would place their health insurance dollars into a non-profit pot, unlike medicare and medicaid, which are funded by tax dollars. Let it be a not for profit, because physicians are afraid of anything starting with medi-. Problems solved for everyone except those with a monetary stake in private healthcare insurance.
 

VoiceofReason

all i care about is money
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 23, 2006
1,264
36
0
New York
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I completely agree with them.
thats because you're ******ed. nice piece of 'unbiased' reporting. the only 'liberal' thing that is taught universally at medical schools these days is humanism, not the merits of healthcare models and certainly not the merits of one healthcare model.

i would go into more detail but you're clearly hopeless if you're reading fox news and probably hold other reprehensible opinions like 'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success' and 'it is sane to require that people go bankrupt to pay for life saving care" -- suffice it to say i probably produce more electricity than your brain when i rub my nuts on this luxurious bearskin rug.
 

Green Grass

10+ Year Member
Feb 8, 2007
1,690
249
281
Under Your Feet
Status
Resident [Any Field]
thats because you're ******ed. nice piece of 'unbiased' reporting. the only 'liberal' thing that is taught universally at medical schools these days is humanism, not the merits of healthcare models and certainly not the merits of one healthcare model.

i would go into more detail but you're clearly hopeless if you're reading fox news and probably hold other reprehensible opinions like 'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success' and 'it is sane to require that people go bankrupt to pay for life saving care" -- suffice it to say i probably produce more electricity than your brain when i rub my nuts on this luxurious bearskin rug.
Haha. This was great. Had it not been for your cheap attempt at being funny along with the condescending remarks, I would nearly respect your opinion.

I think the point of the article was to present the other side of the healthcare debate. I doubt the authors meant that EVERY medical school is pushing universal healthcare, but some certainly are. Those of us opposed to universal healthcare would obviously be quite annoyed with the constant barrage of manipulated facts and figures meant at making the U.S. healthcare system look like ****.
 

BlondDoctor

10+ Year Member
Nov 20, 2008
64
1
0
Stockholm, Sweden
Status
Medical Student
thats because you're ******ed. nice piece of 'unbiased' reporting. the only 'liberal' thing that is taught universally at medical schools these days is humanism, not the merits of healthcare models and certainly not the merits of one healthcare model.

i would go into more detail but you're clearly hopeless if you're reading fox news and probably hold other reprehensible opinions like 'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success' and 'it is sane to require that people go bankrupt to pay for life saving care" -- suffice it to say i probably produce more electricity than your brain when i rub my nuts on this luxurious bearskin rug.
+1

(no nuts though)
 

Green Grass

10+ Year Member
Feb 8, 2007
1,690
249
281
Under Your Feet
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I've seen a few of my classmates jump the sinking ship of Hope & Change they boarded 2 years ago with the recent health care bills.

But I completely agree with the article and how data/facts are always manipulated for the argument one is trying to pose. Fortunately, my school hasn't done this.
This is the thing that annoys me most.
 

Pharmavixen

foxy pharmacist
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 20, 2008
1,043
14
151
Canada
Status
Pharmacist
This part:
We repeatedly hear that Canadians live longer than Americans. However, we are never told that when the data is adjusted for motor vehicle accidents and homicide, the United States leads the world in longevity. Shouldn’t this statistic be taught as well?
Unattributed statistics are the lifeblood of discussion groups. So...did they make the comparison truly parallel by adjusting the accident and homicide rates in the other countries too, or just the US?

There's a long history of universities being accused of having a liberal bias - at least back to the '60s. I might suggest to the conservatives, if it's true that universities have a liberal bias, what do you think it says when the smartest people in a culture tend to lean in a certain direction politically?
 

Breazy

10+ Year Member
Jul 12, 2007
19
0
241
Status
Pre-Medical
I might suggest to the conservatives, if it's true that universities have a liberal bias, what do you think it says when the smartest people in a culture tend to lean in a certain direction politically?

Maybe the "most out of touch with reality" would be a more accurate way to describe students and faculty at universities. It's called the "ivory tower" for a reason.

But hey, i'm not conservative, just doing some devil's advocating
 

MCVmedstudent

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
May 13, 2008
24
0
0
Status
This part:


Unattributed statistics are the lifeblood of discussion groups. So...did they make the comparison truly parallel by adjusting the accident and homicide rates in the other countries too, or just the US?

There's a long history of universities being accused of having a liberal bias - at least back to the '60s. I might suggest to the conservatives, if it's true that universities have a liberal bias, what do you think it says when the smartest people in a culture tend to lean in a certain direction politically?
I would actually argue the smartest people get out of academia and go to the private sector. You know the old adage, those who can't do, teach.
 

MOHS_01

audemus jura nostra defendere
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2005
11,853
7,428
281
the old rickhouse
Status
Attending Physician
This part:


Unattributed statistics are the lifeblood of discussion groups. So...did they make the comparison truly parallel by adjusting the accident and homicide rates in the other countries too, or just the US?

There's a long history of universities being accused of having a liberal bias - at least back to the '60s. I might suggest to the conservatives, if it's true that universities have a liberal bias, what do you think it says when the smartest people in a culture tend to lean in a certain direction politically?
Holy ill informed bat****, Batman! There is a lot of logic fail in that post... beginning with the assumption that "the smartest people in a culture" eventuate at universities, an assumption that I would take to task. Perhaps -- perhaps -- it is a reflection that those with a liberal bias choose a career path where their views are more accepted? Perhaps universities select out those with progressive bias? Perhaps those with more sane leanings gravitate toward other career paths?
 

RabbMD

ASA Member
10+ Year Member
May 13, 2008
216
0
241
Status
Attending Physician
'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success'
LOL you were trying to be funny here, but just shows your bias. I truly would not want to live in a world where our path in life is left to luck without regard to work ethic, sacrifice, and intelligence. Sure life is not completely "fair" but I'll argue to my grave that people have more control over their circumstances than not. I'd never want to live in that sad place it seems a lot of liberals live that random chance or nepotism shapes all of our fates.
 

NonTradMed

Perpetual Student
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 6, 2004
2,306
10
0
Somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Visit site
Status
Medical Student
I would actually argue the smartest people get out of academia and go to the private sector. You know the old adage, those who can't do, teach.
Is this from personal experience? My parents were biologists and they worked at various universities for 20 years before switching over to private sector. They thought academia were filled with extremely bright people, and the BigPharm company they work for now have more than their share of stupid people. Private sectors don't have some monopoly on smart people. Most companies are composed of rank and file worker bees who can do what they're told. I would concur. When I did compsci research at school, the labs were filled with some brilliant programmers. I can't say the same for the medium sized IT company I worked for after graduation.
 

Lokhtar

Dreaming about the lions
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2007
3,102
11
141
Philadelphia
Status
Medical Student
Yup, the best people in the sciences are almost all invariably in academia. Just look at the resumes of the average hire of an assistant professor vs. a private sector job. That's really not in question.
 

LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
10+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2004
6,431
481
281
Status
Attending Physician
Yup, the best people in the sciences are almost all invariably in academia. Just look at the resumes of the average hire of an assistant professor vs. a private sector job. That's really not in question.
I dont know about that. I would say the laziest of the breed takes to academia though. The Hope of one day achieving tenure and being able to fully realize the dream of never again being a productive member of society lost in one's thoughts is enough to drive some academics to walk into meetings and shoot people. As current events indicate.
 

Lokhtar

Dreaming about the lions
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2007
3,102
11
141
Philadelphia
Status
Medical Student
I dont know about that. I would say the laziest of the breed takes to academia though. The Hope of one day achieving tenure and being able to fully realize the dream of never again being a productive member of society lost in one's thoughts is enough to drive some academics to walk into meetings and shoot people. As current events indicate.
Your statement is not supported by facts if you look at actual work done, e.g, research productivity. Academia is not a 9-5 job as much of industry is, my professors are in the lab usually six to seven days a week, putting in twelve hour days. The Assistant professors especially - they want to get tenure. The tenured professors vary in their productivity, but a huge amount want to become full professor, and keep up the work. Generally, you're useful to the department if you bring in $$ in grants. You don't get massive grants by being lazy.
 

TDX

Jan 2, 2010
156
5
0
Status
Medical Student
I dont know about that. I would say the laziest of the breed takes to academia though. The Hope of one day achieving tenure and being able to fully realize the dream of never again being a productive member of society lost in one's thoughts is enough to drive some academics to walk into meetings and shoot people. As current events indicate.
I take it you studied in the Caribbean?

At real universities, a vast majority of professors live and breathe their work. A typical university professor will spend most of the time he technically isn't working writing books, giving public lectures and reading up on new developments in his field. Being successful in academia in most cases involves not just working in your field, but passionately loving it.
 

thedrjojo

10+ Year Member
Jun 20, 2008
23,875
16,144
281
Status
Attending Physician
Holy ill informed bat****, Batman! There is a lot of logic fail in that post... beginning with the assumption that "the smartest people in a culture" eventuate at universities, an assumption that I would take to task. Perhaps -- perhaps -- it is a reflection that those with a liberal bias choose a career path where their views are more accepted? Perhaps universities select out those with progressive bias? Perhaps those with more sane leanings gravitate toward other career paths?
Perhaps... you can keep telling yourself that... Fox News sure will tell you that. OR, maybe, since life isn't as black and white as everyone wants to make it out to be, and, as hard as it is for liberals to believe, there are intelligent people who are conservative, and as infathomable as conservatives believe, there are intelligent liberals, and we are all arguing unprovable theories, there are smart and dumb lazy people in all sectors. People want to surround themselves with like minded individuals.

Places where discovery and advancement (at least as far as medicine is concerned, but also in most industries, although private sector innovation is also present), you know, progression, is done in university's with people who want to progress medicine/society/whatever, and places where actual work is done (not to say actual work does not get done at University Hospitals, as care is usually considered superior there and more advanced cases that can't be handled anywhere else typically get sent there) and people resist change and progression of most forms, conservatism, is done in the private sector. Both are vital and necessary in our culture (without progressives, we would still own slaves, women couldn't vote, companies could put whatever toxins into our products/environment, etc, and without conservatives, well, I am sure conservatives have achieved something useful for our nation... abstenence only... no... creationism... no... war on terror... no.. [and while all of these things are horrible, I am just trying to be sarcastic] I guess I can give them credit for Free Market Capitalism, which when kept in check is pretty good and better than anything else out there) and really, without the other group, neither group could get people excited and rallying.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian

Above is a link to thursday's Daily Show, and shows why, truely, Jon Stewart might be the greatest thinker/reporter in media at this time... truely a modern day Socrates.
 

N-Surge

Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2005
817
6
251
Status
Attending Physician
A "living" tax. That is really what was just passed, no? To be fined when not having health insurance, sure sounds like it to me. Maybe I simplify it too much, but what else is it? o_O
 

MOHS_01

audemus jura nostra defendere
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2005
11,853
7,428
281
the old rickhouse
Status
Attending Physician
.....

Above is a link to thursday's Daily Show, and shows why, truely, Jon Stewart might be the greatest thinker/reporter in media at this time... truely a modern day Socrates.
For the love of all things holy... the mere fact that you held up a satirical comedian as a "modern day Socrates" pretty much discredits anything else you have to say on matters of policy or philosophy -- and I like John Stewart (for what he is - an intelligent comedian). He's the Dennis Miller of the left - that's it.
 

thedrjojo

10+ Year Member
Jun 20, 2008
23,875
16,144
281
Status
Attending Physician
For the love of all things holy... the mere fact that you held up a satirical comedian as a "modern day Socrates" pretty much discredits anything else you have to say on matters of policy or philosophy -- and I like John Stewart (for what he is - an intelligent comedian). He's the Dennis Miller of the left - that's it.
Its a shame you dismiss him, and me, so quickly. You probably gave(still give?) more credit to birthers... I am not actually the only one to think so (http://www.amazon.com/Daily-Show-Philosophy-Moments-Fake/dp/1405163143/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269432282&sr=8-2)

All of the investigative reports use the socratic method, allowing people to talk and then catching them in their own contradictions and ridiculasness to prove that they don't know wtf they are talking about. I need no better modern evidence than his interview of Bill Kristol, where he all but got him to eat his own words and say that the government can run 1st class healthcare (in referrence to the VA system...). Stewart's Glenn Beckian induced rant (my previous link) points light to how anyone can make wild and absurd claims, but atleast his are in the tone of comedy... Stewart did an equally funny and poinaint (sp?) rant about Keith Olbermann and how his rhetoric also got a bit carried away (but unlike Beck or anyone on the right that he nails, like Hannity when he used a wrong protest footage to try to gain more credit to a rally, Olbermann saw the clip and had some introspection and recognized he did actually go a bit overboard and appologized and promised to "try" to tone it down...)
 

MOHS_01

audemus jura nostra defendere
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2005
11,853
7,428
281
the old rickhouse
Status
Attending Physician
I don't dismiss either of you; I take Stewart at his word -- by his own measure he is a comedian with a political slant. He does not consider himself a journalist or policy expert, and has admitted such with great regularity in many interviews. He is the counterpart to Dennis Miller; both are quite intelligent and well informed.

By the same token I view you as someone who makes an honest effort to be both informed and involved... and believe your views to be a function of where you are at on life's curve. I fully expect them to shift accordingly as time goes by -- similar to the way that many others' do when remaining informed and gaining further appreciation of history, policy, and its impact.
 
Aug 19, 2009
186
1
0
Status
A "living" tax. That is really what was just passed, no? To be fined when not having health insurance, sure sounds like it to me. Maybe I simplify it too much, but what else is it? o_O
So if tommorow you lose your job and go bankrupt and lose your health insurance, and next year someone stabs you with a knife (real life example), then when you go to the Emergency Room they should just let you die? After all, EMTLA is a tax on everyone else. You should be made to pay your fair share, and to also pay for primary care so poor folks don't have to go to the E.R. for all medical care.
 

N-Surge

Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2005
817
6
251
Status
Attending Physician
So if tommorow you lose your job and go bankrupt and lose your health insurance, and next year someone stabs you with a knife (real life example), then when you go to the Emergency Room they should just let you die? After all, EMTLA is a tax on everyone else. You should be made to pay your fair share, and to also pay for primary care so poor folks don't have to go to the E.R. for all medical care.
Just admitted someone to the floor from our programs County Hospital ED today. I live in this world you are referring too.... I also happen to have a divorced mother out of work whom I can't take care of because I am paid nothing as a resident. She does not have health insurance...
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2009
186
1
0
Status
Just admitted someone to the floor from our programs County Hospital ED today. I live in this world you are referring too.... I also happen to have a divorced mother out of work whom I can't take care of because I am paid nothing as a resident. She does not have health insurance...
So, again, if tomorrow something happens to your mother and she needs some expensive medical care, then we shouldn't give it to her?

Let's assume that she has enough income that she could afford to pay at least a portion of the cost of some health insurance.

So, in your world you want health insurance to be optional. Well, that just means if your mother is hurt unexpectedly, then the hospital either lets her die or it treats her. If the hospital treats her, it has to get back all that money it spent on supplies and paying staff somewhere. Where does a hospital get the money from? From overcharging everyone else for medical care.

That's almost like a tax on every person who buys health insurance, since policies will be more expensive if a health insurance policy covers the cost of treating you and other people if you happen to get hurt.

This new system, everyone just has to pay their fair share directly, or that's the idea, anyhow. I know there are flaws in the way it is implemented, but the basic idea is, since society WILL pay for the medical care to save someone's life if they get hurt, whether that person wants it ahead of time or not, then we might as well force everyone to pre-pay for the risk of being alive.

Driving a car is dangerous. In a speeding vehicle, you're a risk to everyone else and if you drive long enough, eventually you will make a mistake and damage someone else's health or property. So you gotta buy liability insurance.

Driving your body around in life is also dangerous. Eventually you WILL need medical treatment or you will die. Since society can't get over it's collective guilt if it doesn't treat you, in a way you are a walking liability. You must buy liability insurance if you can afford it to pay for the cost others have to pay if something happens to you.
 

N-Surge

Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2005
817
6
251
Status
Attending Physician
So, again, if tomorrow something happens to your mother and she needs some expensive medical care, then we shouldn't give it to her?

Let's assume that she has enough income that she could afford to pay at least a portion of the cost of some health insurance.

So, in your world you want health insurance to be optional. Well, that just means if your mother is hurt unexpectedly, then the hospital either lets her die or it treats her. If the hospital treats her, it has to get back all that money it spent on supplies and paying staff somewhere. Where does a hospital get the money from? From overcharging everyone else for medical care.

That's almost like a tax on every person who buys health insurance, since policies will be more expensive if a health insurance policy covers the cost of treating you and other people if you happen to get hurt.

This new system, everyone just has to pay their fair share directly, or that's the idea, anyhow. I know there are flaws in the way it is implemented, but the basic idea is, since society WILL pay for the medical care to save someone's life if they get hurt, whether that person wants it ahead of time or not, then we might as well force everyone to pre-pay for the risk of being alive.

Driving a car is dangerous. In a speeding vehicle, you're a risk to everyone else and if you drive long enough, eventually you will make a mistake and damage someone else's health or property. So you gotta buy liability insurance.

Driving your body around in life is also dangerous. Eventually you WILL need medical treatment or you will die. Since society can't get over it's collective guilt if it doesn't treat you, in a way you are a walking liability. You must buy liability insurance if you can afford it to pay for the cost others have to pay if something happens to you.
In my world? Actually, in my world I take care of all who come through the ED and are sent to my service, insurance or not. My mom would get the same treatment, right now, irregardless of the bill. Sorry, but it's truth.

And as you pointed out, the bill that passed is an idea , tested in Mass (doesn't work, sorry, epic fail!), likely to hurt more than help. Notice that it is not going to cover all people. This has even been mentioned number of times. What about these people? Let me guess, you are going to now go down the path of survival of the fittest?
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2009
186
1
0
Status
In my world? Actually, in my world I take care of all who come through the ED and are sent to my service, insurance or not. My mom would get the same treatment, right now, irregardless of the bill. Sorry, but it's truth.

And as you pointed out, the bill that passed is an idea , tested in Mass (doesn't work, sorry, epic fail!), likely to hurt more than help. Notice that it is not going to cover all people. This has even been mentioned number of times. What about these people? Let me guess, you are going to now go down the path of survival of the fittest?

That first part : it costs you supplies and labor to do that. Where do you get the money for those supplies and to pay those staff who won't give their labor away for free? (everyone but doctors demand to be paid for every hour they work). You are NOT giving away medical care. You are overcharging OTHER PEOPLE for it. That's why when I went to the E.R. for all of 2 hours, mostly spent waiting, without a single drug given or procedure being done on me, the bill was $3000.

Plus, since you can't really overcharge other people enough money to make up for your losses, what happens is that E.R.s end up giving everyone mediocre care with lots of delays. I know you like to pretend you give world class care no matter what (to get over your guilt when someone has a bad outcome), but the truth is, I bet you could do a lot better job if you had more resources and time on each patient.

Survival of the fittest? When have I once said that? I'm saying that to make our current system work we have to BELIEVE that as a nation. Since we don't, we have to change the system.

The handful of LEGAL Americans who won't be covered...I'm not sure who you mean, to be honest. The current bill appears to auto enroll anyone who falls through the cracks into medicaid.
 

N-Surge

Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2005
817
6
251
Status
Attending Physician
There's projected 45 million uninsured... The bill is projected to help 32 million... Do the math. These numbers have been spouted off for quite some time now. I like how you avoided the issue of how Mass has already tried the system presented in the bill and has failed. What is there to believe in when it is with regards to a failed attempt?

Those legal and illegal alike have been getting care in our EDs prior to this bill. How's this bill going to help take the strain off of the EDs? How?
 
Aug 19, 2009
186
1
0
Status
There's projected 45 million uninsured... The bill is projected to help 32 million... Do the math. These numbers have been spouted off for quite some time now. I like how you avoided the issue of how Mass has already tried the system presented in the bill and has failed. What is there to believe in when it is with regards to a failed attempt?

Those legal and illegal alike have been getting care in our EDs prior to this bill. How's this bill going to help take the strain off of the EDs? How?
Uh, because the E.R.s will start making non-emergent patients schedule appointments with a primary care physician. Since nearly everyone will have insurance, except for illegals, that will be possible. In the short term, primary care physicians will have to rely heavily on physician extenders to keep up with the demand.

How has Mass "failed"? Nearly everyone's insured. They need more primary care physicians, and they need to figure out a way to stabilize prices. But, overall, Mass is doing better than the rest of the country. It took 40 years for the health care system to get to the disease ridden state it is in now. It'll take a while to repair it completely. (and only if Republicans who want NO CHANGE AT ALL don't get their way)
 

cpants

Member
10+ Year Member
Sep 28, 2007
2,636
270
281
Status
Attending Physician
Agree that medical school is pushing liberal healthcare agenda. Disagree that it will change our profession in any way. First of all, medical students are smart enough not to believe everything the teacher tells them. Second of all, they, for the most part, have their political ideas set before starting medical school. Average starting age is like 23. Third of all, something like 92% of college professors are admitted liberals, and at least in my experience, they espoused a lot more radical ideas than any med school professors do. Still, going to college doesn't change students into liberals. About half our country is still conservative, as it has been for the past couple of generations. Sure, a couple of minds might be swayed in one direction or the other, but there is no way the med school curriculum is changing people's political ideas on any kind of large scale.
 

GassiusClay

PGY-2
10+ Year Member
Jan 23, 2007
120
3
0
Michigan
Status
Resident [Any Field]
thats because you're ******ed. nice piece of 'unbiased' reporting. the only 'liberal' thing that is taught universally at medical schools these days is humanism, not the merits of healthcare models and certainly not the merits of one healthcare model.

i would go into more detail but you're clearly hopeless if you're reading fox news and probably hold other reprehensible opinions like 'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success' and 'it is sane to require that people go bankrupt to pay for life saving care" -- suffice it to say i probably produce more electricity than your brain when i rub my nuts on this luxurious bearskin rug.
Hey,

Maybe your daddy is paying your tuition.

BUT guess what, we work harder and are smarter than the average pathetic moron in the US. IF they go bankrupt to save their worthless parasitic life, FINE. That's what happens every else.

Somehow, liberals are okay with fat fcks because McDonalds convinced them to eat crap. If you want to, have your future check go to Michael Moore. Guarantee Moore wouldn't make it a country that valued responsibility and hardwork. Basically, everything a Dem is disgusted by. Can't believe they have hippie idiots like you with no patient experience have an opinion. Quit med school, join the other losers in Obama's welfare camp.
 

Slack3r

Sicker than your average
10+ Year Member
Jul 23, 2008
2,830
1,363
281
thats because you're ******ed. nice piece of 'unbiased' reporting. the only 'liberal' thing that is taught universally at medical schools these days is humanism, not the merits of healthcare models and certainly not the merits of one healthcare model.

i would go into more detail but you're clearly hopeless if you're reading fox news and probably hold other reprehensible opinions like 'life is fair just bootstrap your way to success' and 'it is sane to require that people go bankrupt to pay for life saving care" -- suffice it to say i probably produce more electricity than your brain when i rub my nuts on this luxurious bearskin rug.
Speaking of ******ed...
 

Jorje286

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 19, 2004
637
68
271
Status
The idea that academia is filled with unintelligent, lazy people.... :rofl: :laugh:

The academic world, in the US at least, has become so competitive that only the very smart, ruthlessly competitive, extremely hard working are likely to get a faculty position, never mind tenure. Just think that for research positions you need funding, and in the case of biomedical sciences, that means hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the competition for those grants is intense.
 

Lokhtar

Dreaming about the lions
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2007
3,102
11
141
Philadelphia
Status
Medical Student
Even at mid and low tier universities, there are so many applicants for one spot that you have to not only be very competitive in terms of output, you generally have to bring your own funding. You get like 150 applicants for one spot, 80 with fantastic research, and 20 that are bringing in big grants with them. And you choose one. I think people are drinking the Kool-Aid if they think otherwise. A simple demonstration would be to simply look at the resume of your professor.
 

Pharmavixen

foxy pharmacist
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 20, 2008
1,043
14
151
Canada
Status
Pharmacist
In the professional faculties, the profs have gigs in "the real world." For instance, a doctor who helped write the methadone policy for our jail works out of a hospital in the city with people addicted to Oxycontin, heroin, etc. And he lectures on opioids, chronic pain treatment, and addictions at the university's medical school.

But when he offers his opinions on addictions, etc, he is often told he's got his "head in the clouds;" he's an academic who needs to learn about "the real world." At a conference, he quipped to me if one more person told him he was in an "Ivory tower," he was going to vomit.

Basically, this whole "Ivory tower" thing is a non-argument, an ad hominem attack on experts by people who don't have the intellect/expertise to argue fairly and properly on the expert's turf.
 

MOHS_01

audemus jura nostra defendere
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2005
11,853
7,428
281
the old rickhouse
Status
Attending Physician
Bloody hell, people.... some members of academia are undoubtedly brilliant and some are not. It is important to note that medicine is significantly different from the sciences, however, given the job prospects on the private market are sometimes equally, if not more, attractive than those in the academic world. It is blatantly inaccurate, however, to believe that those who inhabit the halls of academia in medicine are, across the board, any better than their private counterparts. I had multiple offers in the academic world -- as did many of my colleagues. Ultimately, the "better" candidates all chose the private world. Anecdotal, yes -- but it has held true over more than a decade before and since.
 

Jorje286

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 19, 2004
637
68
271
Status
Bloody hell, people.... some members of academia are undoubtedly brilliant and some are not. It is important to note that medicine is significantly different from the sciences, however, given the job prospects on the private market are sometimes equally, if not more, attractive than those in the academic world. It is blatantly inaccurate, however, to believe that those who inhabit the halls of academia in medicine are, across the board, any better than their private counterparts. I had multiple offers in the academic world -- as did many of my colleagues. Ultimately, the "better" candidates all chose the private world. Anecdotal, yes -- but it has held true over more than a decade before and since.
It's wrong to fully generalize either way, and what you mentioned also depends on what kind of academic position. Purely teaching/administrative/clinical is not the same as one involved in research. If you want to be involved in basic science/translational research, you're in a rats race where the selection process is ridiculously competitive and only those who are really exceptional in terms of 1) intelligence 2) hard work 3)and even competitive spirit will get through. And that's pretty much at all levels of academia.
 

MOHS_01

audemus jura nostra defendere
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2005
11,853
7,428
281
the old rickhouse
Status
Attending Physician
Jorje,

That is the point I was trying to make -- not all levels of academia are equally competitive. The positions that I was referring to were at the various Mayo sites, by the way, and they missed out on the stronger candidates for the clinical positions. I really have no idea about the remainder of the academic world as I have no experience with it.
 

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
19,111
22,896
281
Status
Attending Physician
Uh, because the E.R.s will start making non-emergent patients schedule appointments with a primary care physician. Since nearly everyone will have insurance, except for illegals, that will be possible. In the short term, primary care physicians will have to rely heavily on physician extenders to keep up with the demand.
You're kidding, right? There is already a shortage of PCPs out there, and we won't HAVE to do ****. If we get too busy, we stop taking new patients. Simple as that. Or even better, stop taking certain insurances starting with the worst paying and moving up as needed. Where do you think those folks w/o a PCP will go now?

How has Mass "failed"? Nearly everyone's insured. They need more primary care physicians, and they need to figure out a way to stabilize prices. But, overall, Mass is doing better than the rest of the country. It took 40 years for the health care system to get to the disease ridden state it is in now. It'll take a while to repair it completely. (and only if Republicans who want NO CHANGE AT ALL don't get their way)
Mass hasn't failed, per say, but its not doing great things. As I pointed out above, they still have problems finding a PCP. People waiting weeks/months to get one will still crowd the ED with minor issues. Likewise, the overloaded PCPs don't have as much time to devote to acute care so more people to the ED. I also noticed that the program was running ~$4-$500,000 over budget. But you're right, a plan like this will fix everything.

Republicans want change, just not a huge package that costs a fortune. I still fail to see (and have failed to see since last year), why we couldn't just start with allowing insurances to compete across state lines. That would've passed in half a minute. After that, fix the children with pre-existing conditions and/or lifetime maximum parts. Most everyone thinks those are worthwhile, and I think the right wouldn't have fought those hard if at all. Incrementally changing things and then watching to see what happens seems a great idea to me. Why Pelosi/Obama disagree is beyond me.
 

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
19,111
22,896
281
Status
Attending Physician
Jorje,

That is the point I was trying to make -- not all levels of academia are equally competitive. The positions that I was referring to were at the various Mayo sites, by the way, and they missed out on the stronger candidates for the clinical positions. I really have no idea about the remainder of the academic world as I have no experience with it.
I think you get problems like this with high paying specialties more than others. I bet IM professor jobs get snapped up pretty quick. Plastics/derm less so.
 

thedrjojo

10+ Year Member
Jun 20, 2008
23,875
16,144
281
Status
Attending Physician
Republicans want change, just not a huge package that costs a fortune. I still fail to see (and have failed to see since last year), why we couldn't just start with allowing insurances to compete across state lines. That would've passed in half a minute. After that, fix the children with pre-existing conditions and/or lifetime maximum parts. Most everyone thinks those are worthwhile, and I think the right wouldn't have fought those hard if at all. Incrementally changing things and then watching to see what happens seems a great idea to me. Why Pelosi/Obama disagree is beyond me.
I'll agree that some Republicans want change...

State line issue I think only works if we either make companies that offer over state lines meet the requirements of the state they are offering it in (different states have different requirements of what insurance policies offer). Plus, as long as the companies have anti-trust exemption, then it doesn't really matter how many people are working together to fix the prices, there is not any competition. With how many problems or issues in healthcare, your make 1 change and then watch would take about 200 years to address them all (if you assumed make 1 change, wait a year to see what happens, address another issue that needs change). If you see 200 things that need to be changed, why not change all f'ing 200 of them! The sad part is, both sides probably agreed on about 150-175 of the hypothetical 200 problems (meaning 75-90% of the things they agreed upon) but because of politics, they couldn't start with all of those and then build from there... if republicans went through the bill and highlighted everything in it they agree with and then address the other issues and be willing to make SOME compromises (since the Dems were the only one to make any compromises... they eliminated the public option for crying out loud, which was a compromise from single payor to begin with... thats what the Dems have been doing wrong... they initially present a plan that IS a compromise, like with public option, like with the stimulus bill (the amount of tax breaks vs spending was less than they wanted on initial presentation) , and then Republicans look at that as a starting point, negotiate it even further right, and then stay it doesn't go far enough and universally reject it... you must commend their unity). To think buying over state lines would have any appreciable difference and want to pass that and claim it a victory... Repubs controlled congress from 1994-2006, where was this any of that time? If they were going to do any changes, they needed to be substantial...
 

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
19,111
22,896
281
Status
Attending Physician
I'm going to break this up a little in my responses for simplicity...

I'll agree that some Republicans want change...

State line issue I think only works if we either make companies that offer over state lines meet the requirements of the state they are offering it in (different states have different requirements of what insurance policies offer). Plus, as long as the companies have anti-trust exemption, then it doesn't really matter how many people are working together to fix the prices, there is not any competition.
The anti-trust exemption is an issue, there's no denying that. The different regulations that vary from state to state are hardly an issue. Hire an extra lawyer or two and change the plans around enough so they can be marketed in other states. If lawyers can practice in up to 3 states at once, there's no reason insurance companies can't manage at least that much.


With how many problems or issues in healthcare, your make 1 change and then watch would take about 200 years to address them all (if you assumed make 1 change, wait a year to see what happens, address another issue that needs change). If you see 200 things that need to be changed, why not change all f'ing 200 of them!
Easy, because some of the 200 fixes are bad ideas that don't consider the consequences. My "one thing at a time" approach didn't literally mean only one at a time. Interstate competition, no denying minors based on pre-existing conditions, federal funding to the states to conduct tort-reform trials, medicare fix; put those in the first bill. Maybe 6-12 months later, no max benefits, free preventative care required, and letting kids stay on parents' insurance until 26. The current bill isn't a quick fix to anything either so I don't see why this approach wasn't used.


The sad part is, both sides probably agreed on about 150-175 of the hypothetical 200 problems (meaning 75-90% of the things they agreed upon) but because of politics, they couldn't start with all of those and then build from there... if republicans went through the bill and highlighted everything in it they agree with and then address the other issues and be willing to make SOME compromises (since the Dems were the only one to make any compromises... they eliminated the public option for crying out loud, which was a compromise from single payor to begin with... thats what the Dems have been doing wrong... they initially present a plan that IS a compromise, like with public option, like with the stimulus bill (the amount of tax breaks vs spending was less than they wanted on initial presentation) , and then Republicans look at that as a starting point, negotiate it even further right, and then stay it doesn't go far enough and universally reject it... you must commend their unity). To think buying over state lines would have any appreciable difference and want to pass that and claim it a victory...
No, the public option was eliminated to get enough of the moderate democrats on board to pass this thing to begin with. The bill would never have left the Senate otherwise.

As for the ~80% of things each side agrees with - why not pass that? If both sides agree with a certain number of issue fixes, pass those first thing. Then you can argue over the remaining issues while still doing something.


Repubs controlled congress from 1994-2006, where was this any of that time? If they were going to do any changes, they needed to be substantial...
Medicaid part D? That was a fairly substantial change.
 
Aug 19, 2009
186
1
0
Status
The poster above who proposed "compete across state lines" needs to take some remedial economics. A corporation exists to maximize profit. An insurance company issuing policies nationwide will maximize profit if it cherry picks the healthy patients and excludes the ill, so that premiums paid end up as profits to the shareholders. Going across state line solves absolutely nothing.