Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These massive health systems are surviving while the CEO takes home millions and they build luxury lobbies with piano players and water fountains? That’s what we call survival? We can fund fancy glass atriums in the cafeteria, but we can’t provide primary care services for our citizens? Come on.

Hey man I don’t like execs pulling down those figures on the backs of hardworking clinicians and running behemoths that shouldn’t even exist anymore than anyone else on this field forum. But there are nuances

What about the independent two physician primary care practice that suddenly uphended by big hospital? You know how that goes. It’s Join or die? Survival on the part of the practice.

A medical oncology group is told by big hospital to join them. They refuse so they build a new cancer center and Start buying out their referring docs. Med Onc group capitulates and sells practice. Survival

The anesthesia group in a saturated poorpayor area been with a hospital 40 years suddenly told that they wont be getting any subsidy from the hospital any longer and joins Mednax.
Mostly survival.


The 20 hospital health system dominant in the region eying purchasing a dominant neighboring regional system consisting of 15 hospitals. Greed.

VC firms banking on OON billing for profit from a EM group they bought two years ago. GReed.
 
Should we tax cars that can go over 25 mph and outlaw motorcycles?

But wait. Smokers cost less, on the whole, than non-smokers, because they die young. They have lower lifetime medical needs, and (here's a great benefit!) they collect Social Security for a much shorter time. Smokers should be honored for taking one for the team this way.

We should be subsidizing cigarettes, not taxing them. It's the only sound economic policy.

Oh, alcohol too. Actually, we should go a step further, and mandate 1% methanol content in all distilled spirits. Let's get even further ahead of the curve.

Wait. I just read this again. Did you really extrapolate paying a tax on Pepsi to poisoning and potentially murdering people? I just want to confirm that because that is one heck of a straw man.
 
Hey man I don’t like execs pulling down those figures on the backs of hardworking clinicians and running behemoths that shouldn’t even exist anymore than anyone else on this field forum. But there are nuances

What about the independent two physician primary care practice that suddenly uphended by big hospital? You know how that goes. It’s Join or die? Survival on the part of the practice.

A medical oncology group is told by big hospital to join them. They refuse so they build a new cancer center and Start buying out their referring docs. Med Onc group capitulates and sells practice. Survival

The anesthesia group in a saturated poorpayor area been with a hospital 40 years suddenly told that they wont be getting any subsidy from the hospital any longer and joins Mednax.
Mostly survival.


The 20 hospital health system dominant in the region eying purchasing a dominant neighboring regional system consisting of 15 hospitals. Greed.

VC firms banking on OON billing for profit from a EM group they bought two years ago. GReed.

I simplified all that to greed driving the whole process. Physicians are only a small part of the healthcare system. The out of control costs are driven by greed.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh I think the government should stop subsidizing industrial agriculture today.

Price transparency may help if the healthcare behaved like a normal market. It doesn’t. People often don’t have choices because of their insurance. Throw on top of that the consolidation and formation of regional monopolies and price transparency does absolutely nothing but give you a clearer picture of how you are being ripped off.
Now we are getting somewhere. Consolidation which was put on steroids with the Affordable care act is one of the worst things that can happen for price control in health care.. These regional monopolies have no competition or very little competition. Moreover, they are buying out medical practices to own all of them. They employ docs and give them impossible metrics to meet. Of course all of this violates the stark regulations in my opinion.

Medicare for all would also be one of the worst things that could happen to American Medicine. I cant believe these politicians are even talking about it.

Break up the consolidated health systems, open up the market to all players, unmarry the employer and health plans, support pvt practices, close the dept of veteran affairs (one big F***in swamp) completely and you will start to see some semblance of reality and meritocracy. The democrats have their heads up their a***es.
 
Now we are getting somewhere. Consolidation which was put on steroids with the Affordable care act is one of the worst things that can happen for price control in health care.. These regional monopolies have no competition or very little competition. Moreover, they are buying out medical practices to own all of them. They employ docs and give them impossible metrics to meet. Of course all of this violates the stark regulations in my opinion.

Medicare for all would also be one of the worst things that could happen to American Medicine. I cant believe these politicians are even talking about it.

Break up the consolidated health systems, open up the market to all players, unmarry the employer and health plans, support pvt practices, close the dept of veteran affairs (one big F***in swamp) completely and you will start to see some semblance of reality and meritocracy. The democrats have their heads up their a***es.

Ok. That might be even more fantasy talk than Bernie Sanders is accustomed to. We’ll just break up all the regional health systems...easy peezy.
 
Ok. That might be even more fantasy talk than Bernie Sanders is accustomed to. We’ll just break up all the regional health systems...easy peezy.

They can’t even get around breaking up Facebook and google. But there gonna break up mega hospital Corp...lol.
 
Now we are getting somewhere. Consolidation which was put on steroids with the Affordable care act is one of the worst things that can happen for price control in health care.. These regional monopolies have no competition or very little competition. Moreover, they are buying out medical practices to own all of them. They employ docs and give them impossible metrics to meet. Of course all of this violates the stark regulations in my opinion.

Medicare for all would also be one of the worst things that could happen to American Medicine. I cant believe these politicians are even talking about it.

Break up the consolidated health systems, open up the market to all players, unmarry the employer and health plans, support pvt practices, close the dept of veteran affairs (one big F***in swamp) completely and you will start to see some semblance of reality and meritocracy. The democrats have their heads up their a***es.


Aren’t these market forces and meritocracy at work? Do we want more nanny state government intervention or let the markets do what they do?

What happened in retail with giant national big box stores and Amazon is now extending its reach into healthcare. Indeed Amazon is doing exactly that.

As an aside I have a Swedish friend who loves America but she thinks it is strange that our healthcare is tied to our employers and our athletics and sports are tied to our schools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aren’t these market forces and meritocracy at work? Do we want more nanny state government intervention or let the markets do what they do?

What happened in retail with giant national big box stores and Amazon is now extending its reach into healthcare. Indeed Amazon is doing exactly that.

Consolidation prevents further competition and builds monopolies. No one really wants to compete. Hospitals and practices don’t want to compete with each other. The short term gains aren’t worth it.
 
Wait. I just read this again. Did you really extrapolate paying a tax on Pepsi to poisoning and potentially murdering people? I just want to confirm that because that is one heck of a straw man.
JFC I don't know why I even post in these threads any more. Of course I'm not proposing that we poison people.

I pointed out the objective wrongness of the notion that sin taxes reduce healthcare costs, and ... oh, never mind. Carry on.
 
To be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if Republican strategy was to create this sense of persecution through sympathetic cable news channels and social media in order to create a sense of cohesiveness and shared goals.
New Jersey man claims he was attacked for wearing 'MAGA' hat, claims teens shouted 'F--- Trump!' | Fox News

QGNE6S_M
 
Definitely threw gasoline on that fire.

Admittedly my comment was based on anecdotal evidence in a few markets, but I'm hardly the first person to notice this.




There are literally dozens of articles about this across a broad spectrum of sources. I stand by my contention that the ACA only benefitted hospitals, insurance companies, and a minute portion of the population at the expense of the general public. Go check out the rates of rise pre and post ACA of deductibles and premiums.
 
The only way universal healthcare can be affordable is if we limit it. Sure we can pay for your appy or mastectomy or insulin or CT/MRI, but how the heck are we gonna afford paying for every end stage heart failure or COPD exacerbation? The people on ECMO? Every sick person in the ICU who we know is dying but the family is praying for a miracle? Those NICU babies born way too early who spend months in the ICU and then either pass away or go on to a lifetime of disability?

I believe everyone deserves some basic quality healthcare, but no one deserves everything available. At my residency we never denied any option to patients. Personally found it horrific what we put people through...
Agree 100%. Amen. And then of course you will hear about the so called “death panels”.
This is America.
 
funny how liberals demonize CEOs from major corporations and healthcare organizations who employ millions of people and provide healthcare for millions of people meanwhile are perfectly fine with athletes and entertainers who make hundreds of millions of dollars either playing a game, acting or singing.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These massive health systems are surviving while the CEO takes home millions and they build luxury lobbies with piano players and water fountains? That’s what we call survival? We can fund fancy glass atriums in the cafeteria, but we can’t provide primary care services for our citizens? Come on.
10000% correct
 
Admittedly my comment was based on anecdotal evidence in a few markets, but I'm hardly the first person to notice this.




There are literally dozens of articles about this across a broad spectrum of sources. I stand by my contention that the ACA only benefitted hospitals, insurance companies, and a minute portion of the population at the expense of the general public. Go check out the rates of rise pre and post ACA of deductibles and premiums.


While the ACA may have contributed to it’s acceleration, consolidation in healthcare is just a reflection of a larger trend that has occurred in every industry including manufacturing, mining, tech, agriculture, retail, housing, education, media, etc. If anything, healthcare was a little late to the game. It was inevitable in my opinion.

Also the Kevinmd article makes the ridiculous argument that hospital outpatient department prices should be similar to ASC prices. The typical ASC closes at 5pm and everybody goes home. The hospital has ongoing expenses such as 24/7/365 physicians, nurses, nurses aids, RT’s, X-ray techs, lab techs, security guards, cafeteria workers, lab equipment, etc etc. When you wreck your car and get a traumatic aortic dissection at midnight, the ASC ain’t gonna help you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you say "on the right track" when we're heading in the complete wrong direction with climate change... there won't be a country if he keeps this up.

The predictions have consistently been wrong. It's 2019, shouldn't the world have ended by now?
 
I think the prediction was for 2050 to be when there is irreversible climate change.
Well for one the first Earth Day in 1970 was ripe with them:

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
 
Could you please elaborate how fossil fuels, compared to renewables, improve clean water, livable cities, health, energy independence, and sustainability?


Clean water
- affordable water purification plants
- affordable desalinization plants


Livable cities
- access to affordable electricity
- access to reliable electricity
- access to dependable winter heating
- production of materials used in infrastructure
- construction of buildings

Healthy children
- dependable and affordable electricity for hospitals
- running farm machinery to produce vegetables, soy, fruits

Energy independence
- ability to easily produce enough energy to support the needs of entire countries, reliably

Sustainability
- near limitless supply of resources under the Earth surface, with new resources discovered every year
- as technology develops, thanks to economic prosperity, more efficient devices, tools, lights, are used, further decreasing energy requirements



Of course, we could just switch to nuclear and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Too bad the liberals have fought so hard against nuclear energy.
 
Clean water
- affordable water purification plants
- affordable desalinization plants


Livable cities
- access to affordable electricity
- access to reliable electricity
- access to dependable winter heating
- production of materials used in infrastructure
- construction of buildings

Healthy children
- dependable and affordable electricity for hospitals
- running farm machinery to produce vegetables, soy, fruits

Energy independence
- ability to easily produce enough energy to support the needs of entire countries, reliably

Sustainability
- near limitless supply of resources under the Earth surface, with new resources discovered every year
- as technology develops, thanks to economic prosperity, more efficient devices, tools, lights, are used, further decreasing energy requirements



Of course, we could just switch to nuclear and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Too bad the liberals have fought so hard against nuclear energy.

Your cognitive dissonance is unreal. I guess if you watch enough propaganda news you will believe anything.
 
Your cognitive dissonance is unreal. I guess if you watch enough propaganda news you will believe anything.

I'm not the one wants the green new deal but realizes it would doom civilization as we know it, * cough * ... AOC ... * cough*

Now that's cognitive dissonance!
 

Easy to say, but the fact is the DNC candidates pushing their 'green' agenda have a enormous cost associated with their plan. Warren admits to $3 TRILLION dollars in spending for her green deal, which doesn't get us to 100% clean energy and doesn't include economic impact from a carbon tax. Any action the US takes to combat climate change without the buy in from China and India seems to be relatively pointless on a global scale. Besides, the US is making big reductions in CO2 emissions without further government intervention.

 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think beating Trump will be about whether the democratic nominee is able to walk back whatever crazy wacky stuff that had to be said during the primary to get the fringe left out to vote. The people who vote in the primaries are a very different cohort than the people who vote in the general election.

At this point it's just a ridiculous parade of throwing outlandish free stuff at the wall to see if you can outdo the free stuff the other guy hurled up there.

That's the same strategy Trump used to win the presidency, to some degree, maybe he could have polished himself more for the general election, but he nailed the first part
 
That's the same strategy Trump used to win the presidency, to some degree, maybe he could have polished himself more for the general election, but he nailed the first part

Trump has solid policy prescriptions but rough delivery

Democrats have crap policies but veiled delivery


All Trump has to do is keep promoting his policies and point out the lunacy of the Democrat proposals.

All Democrats want to do is not talk about their policies and just point out how Trump hurts their feelings.


Democrats are in a terrible position because they pushed anti Trump rhetoric for 3 years, despite Trump having policies that resonate with most Americans.
 
As an aside, I've heard physicians are more right leaning compared to the general population.

Is there any data to support this?

And if so, is there any reason why this may be the case? ie. being older on average, higher earning bracket, etc. Maybe ethnical disparities?




Edit: Maybe I was wrong.. according to this graph at least..

275065
 
Last edited:
As an aside, I've heard physicians are more right leaning compared to the general population.

Is there any data to support this?

And if so, is there any reason why this may be the case? ie. being older on average, higher earning bracket, etc. Maybe ethnical disparities?




Edit: Maybe I was wrong.. according to this graph at least..

View attachment 275065


That chart looks accurate.
 
As an aside, I've heard physicians are more right leaning compared to the general population.

Is there any data to support this?

And if so, is there any reason why this may be the case? ie. being older on average, higher earning bracket, etc. Maybe ethnical disparities?




Edit: Maybe I was wrong.. according to this graph at least..

View attachment 275065

If you are an old, white, high-earning male then statistically speaking, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are conservative.

That's an interesting chart. Not only are the most liberal MDs among the lowest paid but their patient populations are also relatively the poorest (i.e. kids, mentally ill, olds, hep c/HIV pts)
 
If you are an old, white, high-earning male then statistically speaking, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are conservative.

That's an interesting chart. Not only are the most liberal MDs among the lowest paid but their patient populations are also relatively the poorest (i.e. kids, mentally ill, olds, hep c/HIV pts)
As you pointed out, the chart seems to follow patient population and in my eyes it also follows physician personality type
 
That chart was created with survey data from 29 states, could be pretty skewed based on who was left out.

if we increase the sample size and include more states, I have a gut feeling it will skew more towards the right, but by how much, I don't know

also would be interesting to compare physicians with other higher end earning careers like Lawyers and Engineers to see how they compare.
maybe Immigration Lawyers would be left leaning LOOL
 
Last edited:
Trump has solid policy prescriptions but rough delivery

Democrats have crap policies but veiled delivery


All Trump has to do is keep promoting his policies and point out the lunacy of the Democrat proposals.

All Democrats want to do is not talk about their policies and just point out how Trump hurts their feelings.


Democrats are in a terrible position because they pushed anti Trump rhetoric for 3 years, despite Trump having policies that resonate with most Americans.
I’m a registered republican and can’t believe my choice will be Trump or whoever the democrats put up. Depressing.
 
if we increase the sample size and include more states, I have a gut feeling it will skew to the right, but by how much, I don't know

also would be interesting to compare physicians with other higher end earning careers like Lawyers and Engineers to see how they compare.
maybe Immigration Lawyers would be left leaning LOOL
Trial lawyers are top donors to democrats so...
 
I suspect that corporate lawyers and prosecutors and attorneys who pull down big bucks (other than personal injury) go the other way.
 

The most interesting to me is the outlier on the left - law professors. Education is so biased in this country.
 

Attachments

  • 4B41FD43-9BBB-43E6-AB8E-99F85AEA9C82.jpeg
    4B41FD43-9BBB-43E6-AB8E-99F85AEA9C82.jpeg
    71.4 KB · Views: 193
I will be voting for Andrew Yang. He is a problem solver, not an ideologue, and he has appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. If you haven't heard of him before, Andrew Yang is an entrepreneur who wants to give everybody over 18 y $1000 per month, no questions asked-- the "freedom dividend" or universal basic income. I honestly didn't like the idea at first, but the more I learned about it, the more it made sense to me. He's done a number of great podcasts with interviewers from across the political spectrum. #YangGang

Joe Rogan:



Ben Shapiro:



Rubin Report:

 
I'm not the smartest when it comes to economics, but wouldn't this cause SERIOUS inflation? Why not just have some federal job guarantee, like during FDR's New Deal?

P.S. Although Yang did go to Brown, which was my undergrad, haha.

Below is a compilation of the most commonly asked questions regarding Andrew Yang and the "freedom dividend" or universal basic income. Your question is the fourth one down on the list. The other commonly asked question-- "how are we going to pay for this?"-- is also there.

 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Below is a compilation of the most commonly asked questions regarding Andrew Yang and the "freedom dividend" or universal basic income. Your question is the fourth one down on the list. The other commonly asked question-- "how are we going to pay for this?"-- is also there.


UBI is a fine idea in theory, especially if it replaces all or most the other welfare programs, but isn’t UBI incompatible with massive illegal immigration? You also have to wonder where it will stop. Once people get a taste of UBI they’ll be voting in people promising higher and higher UBI. Ultimately it is wealth transfer program, which is not so bad at it’s starting point, but would almost certainly get out of control over time.
 
Didn't Mark Zuckerberg push UBI? For high-functioning people, that extra grand a month goes into investment. For the average American? An extra $1K is that much more beer and weed.
It’s UBI + VAT, so it’s only a extra grand a month if your VAT payments are less than 12k/yr. For people spending over 120k per year on items subject to VAT, it’s just a tax increase.
It’s similar to instituting the ‘pre-bate’ of the fair tax plan but without the fair tax advantage of making the tax code simple and fair.
 

He's manipulating the hoi polloi like a third-world banana-country dictator (i.e. the kind of leader he openly admires).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.