Will Trump win again???

[deleted50478]

I’m sorry, but it’s just not true. White males face absolutely no disadvantage in our society. I say that as a white male. Let’s also not ignore the significance of generational wealth on giving people advantages. So even if it were “generations ago” (which it’s not), the significance of those lost generations is enormous.

The thing about your comment is that you are talking about populations while people applying to college or saving for the down payment on a house are individuals. I don’t think disadvantaged white individuals feel any consolation knowing that lots of other white people have positions of privilege.

 

[deleted643396]

Let's put aside the Q of whether that group faces disadvantages in employment, admissions, etc. Are you willing to agree to the position that any discrimination based on race is immoral?

Think of it as a finite resource. The “discrimination” that white males are feeling is simply a result of some of those advantages being taken away to make things in our society and economy more just and equitable. It’s like white males used to get a 20 mile head start when running a marathon, but now they only get a 15 mile head start. Sure, it’s not as sweet an advantage as their grandfathers had, but it’s still an advantage.

 

[deleted643396]

The thing about your comment is that you are talking about populations while people applying to college or saving for the down payment on a house are individuals. I don’t think disadvantaged white individuals feel any consolation knowing that lots of other white people have positions of privilege.

And that’s a wealth problem...more specifically inherited wealth. That is why I specifically stated that being a white male gives you the best advantage in life second only to being born into wealth. It’s also why I support aggressive estate taxation.

 

[Matty44]

Think of it as a finite resource. The “discrimination” that white males are feeling is simply a result of some of those advantages being taken away to make things in our society and economy more just and equitable. It’s like white males used to get a 20 mile head start when running a marathon, but now they only get a 15 mile head start. Sure, it’s not as sweet an advantage as their grandfathers had, but it’s still an advantage.

Wow man, you’re so blind to what you’re saying...

Wrong is wrong, right is right. Racism is racism. The poor white guy from alabama sure doesn’t think he’s benefiting from some 20 mile head start against a well to do black guy from San Francisco. And if they both apply for a job, for med school, whatever and there is some kind of affirmative action or quota, that’s nonsense. Like some said earlier, you can’t hurt individuals today for a history of unfairness that has nothing to do with the individual today. I said it before two wrongs don’t make a right. You either believe people should be treated differently cause of their race or you don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose when you want to apply racism, even if you think you’re justified cause your making up for whatever previous injustices...I mean, you can, but it makes you a hypocrite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted171991]

I’m sorry, but it’s just not true. White males face absolutely no disadvantage in our society. I say that as a white male. Let’s also not ignore the significance of generational wealth on giving people advantages. So even if it were “generations ago” (which it’s not), the significance of those lost generations is enormous.

"You shut the F up! You're a white male. You have no say here. You're the enemy. Your existence is an offense and a trigger. You had millennia to speak; now it's the time to be quiet." </sarcasm>

Btw, it's not the generational wealth that matters. It's the generational wisdom and know-how. Poor people keep repeating the mistakes of the past, and then they are surprised that the outcome is the same. Wealth can be easily wasted in 2-3 stupid generations of descendants, without proper know-how.

 

[deleted643396]

Wow man, you’re so blind to what you’re saying...

Wrong is wrong, right is right. Racism is racism. The poor white guy from alabama sure doesn’t think he’s benefiting from some 20 mile head start against a well to do black guy from San Francisco. And if they both apply for a job, for med school, whatever and there is some kind of affirmative action or quota, that’s nonsense. Like some said earlier, you can’t hurt individuals today for a history of unfairness that has nothing to do with the individual today. I said it before two wrongs don’t make a right. You either believe people should be treated differently cause of their race or you don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose when you want to apply racism, even if you think you’re justified cause your making up for whatever previous injustices...I mean, you can, but it makes you a hypocrite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read what I said about wealth. And let’s be honest, it’s the suburban white kids complaining about “reverse discrimination” because they didn’t get into Harvard. You, yourself, are complaining about being discriminated against. I have a feeling you aren’t a poor white guy from Alabama.

I also don’t believe white males are being discriminated against. When I see proof of that we can talk about the morality of racism.

 

[deleted171991]

Think of it as a finite resource. The “discrimination” that white males are feeling is simply a result of some of those advantages being taken away to make things in our society and economy more just and equitable. It’s like white males used to get a 20 mile head start when running a marathon, but now they only get a 15 mile head start. Sure, it’s not as sweet an advantage as their grandfathers had, but it’s still an advantage.

It's more like being Tiger Woods and having to play with so much handicap as to lose in front of a quasi-amateur. And then calling it "fair".

 

[deleted643396]

It's more like being Tiger Woods and having to play with so much handicap as to lose in front of a quasi-amateur. And then calling it "fair".

The Tiger Woods(es) of this world are such a rare exception that it’s barely worth talking about. Someone with a Tiger Woods level of skill is not wasting time whining about discrimination.

 

[Matty44]

Read what I said about wealth. And let’s be honest, it’s the suburban white kids complaining about “reverse discrimination” because they didn’t get into Harvard. You, yourself, are complaining about being discriminated against. I have a feeling you aren’t a poor white guy from Alabama.

I also don’t believe white males are being discriminated against. When I see proof of that we can talk about the morality of racism.

I never said anything about myself being discriminated against (but pretending people say things they didn’t seems to be the theme here...). I said basing things on race is wrong. Period. You can contort however you want to justify your belief that you can discriminate based on race and sex and it’s not wrong.

But it is.

Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted171991]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

 

[vector2]

Of course it is. Defending allies, our economic interests, and shared strategic resources is more than just OK, it's one of the most fundamental reasons we have a government and a military in the first place.

Saudi Arabia (ugly flaws and all) is a US ally and we have defense agreements with them. You're angry that we're not defending the Kurds against Turkey (another ally and a NATO member too), but a small deployment of mostly air defense assets to an ally that just got bombed by Iran (a mutual adversary) is somehow terrible, because oil?

If you wish, argue that we're on the edge of some kind of post-petroleum green revolution and that oil isn't important any more. You'd be wrong, but there's a discussion to be had. Or argue that it's strategically unwise to do whatever it is you think we're doing in Saudi Arabia.

But don't argue that defending the Kurds is right because they're allies, but defending the Saudis is wrong because they're allies (who have oil).

I think we have a whole bunch of competing points which are clouding the ultimate issue at hand, and Trump's underlying reasoning (or lack thereof) is making things even more confusing.

Firstly, what is the ideology from which we are approaching stationing our military overseas, either in Syria or KSA? If we are talking purely from a Randian isolationism standpoint where the rhetoric right now seems to be that bringing our troops home from the middle east/keeping them out of harm's way is the most important priority, then it would strike me as strange that sanctioning relatively unnecessary troops in KSA would be a desirable action. We have an enormous amount of oil in the Bakken, Permian, Gulf, SPR, NPRA etc, and there are plenty of other countries dependent on middle east oil who have standing militaries who can send their own troops in a support capacity against Iran.

If we are approaching the issue from more of a what strategy overall makes America "safer," or at the very least best serves America's overall geopolitical interests, then it would be appear that neither a sudden withdrawal from Syria nor denying a small deployment to KSA are desirable. I think you made a point earlier that the Kurds are allies but not NATO allies, and that they are also a non-state actor. I'm not sure how relevant that is considering the bulk of our counterterrorism intelligence and ops are against non-state actors, aka ISIS, and the Kurds have been extremely valuable in suppressing ISIS' growth. Additionally, I think we will soon lose count of the hundreds if not thousands of ISIS prisoners who will go free inside Syria and make their way towards our allies in Western Europe. God help me, but I have to agree a little bit with the point that Liz Cheney made in that having a geographic distance of 7000 miles does not necessarily protect us from a small, well-funded, and determined enemy. Furthermore, it is almost a 100% certainty that we will need to rely on both state and non-state allies for our future counterterrorism operations or operations against adversaries such as NK, Russia, Iran, China etc, so what kind of message does it send to them when we use them and then lose them? Does that make us more safe?

In regard to Trump, he adds confusion to the issue because he is so heavily conflicted. It is difficult for us who are interested in his actual motivations to truly believe that he siding with Rand Paul purely out of ideological agreement. Indeed, I think it would be foolish to do so because Trump has such large business interests with Turkey (and KSA / MBS). How do I know that he wants to withdraw from Syria because he cares about the well-being of our soldiers, or because he wants to ensure that Erdogan doesn't pull his royalties from Trump Tower Istanbul like he almost did in 2016?

 

[deleted643396]

I never said anything about myself being discriminated against (but pretending people say things they didn’t seems to be the theme here...). I said basing things on race is wrong. Period. You can contort however you want to justify your belief that you can discriminate based on race and sex and it’s not wrong.

But it is.

Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not justifying discriminating based on race and sex. It is wrong. I am only saying that white males simply do not face discrimination based on their race or sex. If you want to talk about that guy in Alabama who feels like he is being discriminated against then fine. However, my response will be that is a wealth disparity problem, not a race problem. Race gets dragged into that purely for political purposes.

 

[Splenda88]

It's amazing that people who used to own human being (less than 60 yrs ago) complaining about being discriminated against because some university have decided to admit some black people to their institutions based on their background...


If you guys are looking for level playing field, lets African Americans own caucasian slaves for whatever amount of year caucasians owned black slaves while restricting their access to almost everything. Then people can talk about a level playing field.


Can people be so detached?


Self disclosure: I do not belong to either race/ethnicity in question.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Read what I said about wealth. And let’s be honest, it’s the suburban white kids complaining about “reverse discrimination” because they didn’t get into Harvard. You, yourself, are complaining about being discriminated against. I have a feeling you aren’t a poor white guy from Alabama.

I also don’t believe white males are being discriminated against. When I see proof of that we can talk about the morality of racism.

Generally speaking I don't think we are being discriminated against either. There are certainly times of late where we are, but they are the exception at the moment.

The concern from where I sit is that this appears to be gaining some traction by which I mean those rare instances are getting positive reactions.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It's amazing that people who used to own human being (less than 60 yrs ago) complaining about being discriminated against because some university have decided to admit some black people to their institutions based on their background...


If you guys are looking for level playing field, lets African Americans own caucasian slaves for whatever amount of year caucasians owned black slaves while restricting their access to almost everything. Then people can talk about a level playing field.


Can people be so detached?


Self disclosure: I do not belong to either race/ethnicity in question.

When do you think slavery ended in the US?

 

[deleted941485]

When do you think slavery ended in the US?

Im in a pessimistic kind of mood. If Lincoln could witness the US in 2019 I think he would have hardly bothered running for president.

 

[AMEHigh]

When do you think slavery ended in the US?

Sharecropping didn't really end until the 1950s. Sure it wasn't called slavery, but pretty close. Maybe that's what this is referring to. Or it could be a typo and he meant to but a 1 in front of the 60.

 

[radsisrad]

Think of it as a finite resource. The “discrimination” that white males are feeling is simply a result of some of those advantages being taken away to make things in our society and economy more just and equitable. It’s like white males used to get a 20 mile head start when running a marathon, but now they only get a 15 mile head start. Sure, it’s not as sweet an advantage as their grandfathers had, but it’s still an advantage.

I can't believe you're purposely posting these absurdities.

Active discrimination against racial groups in admissions and hiring is merely the removal of an advantage?

???

 

[Matty44]

I am not justifying discriminating based on race and sex. It is wrong. I am only saying that white males simply do not face discrimination based on their race or sex. If you want to talk about that guy in Alabama who feels like he is being discriminated against then fine. However, my response will be that is a wealth disparity problem, not a race problem. Race gets dragged into that purely for political purposes.

But you ARE justifying “taking advantages away” though based on race and sex right?

Your mental gymnastics are amusing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AMEHigh]

@doctalaughs
Here are 2 papers about better health outcomes when Black patients have Black doctors.
The first one was a randomized experiment looking at uptake of preventive care among Black men. Black men requested more preventive services when their doctor was Black. The second one looked at mortality in the hospital setting. Mortality was reduced when Black patients had Black doctors.
Better health is good for everyone...less lost days at work, thus less poverty, thus less crime, etc.

Research: Having a Black Doctor Led Black Men to Receive More-Effective Care

In the U.S., racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of chronic disease, obesity, and premature death. Black patients in particular have among the worst health outcomes, and black men have the lowest life expectancy of any demographic group. A number of factors contribute to these health...

hbr.org

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=2ahUKEwja3POT26TlAhVkuVkKHc7CDVIQFjAPegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Fconference%2F2019%2Fpreliminary%2Fpaper%2F7Gh5BfDh&usg=AOvVaw3H5vaP-QjAnF6IjFA9RyPR

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

@doctalaughs
Here are 2 papers about better health outcomes when Black patients have Black doctors.
The first one was a randomized experiment looking at uptake of preventive care among Black men. Black men requested more preventive services when their doctor was Black. The second one looked at mortality in the hospital setting. Mortality was reduced when Black patients had Black doctors.
Better health is good for everyone...less lost days at work, thus less poverty, thus less crime, etc.

Research: Having a Black Doctor Led Black Men to Receive More-Effective Care

In the U.S., racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of chronic disease, obesity, and premature death. Black patients in particular have among the worst health outcomes, and black men have the lowest life expectancy of any demographic group. A number of factors contribute to these health...

hbr.org

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=2ahUKEwja3POT26TlAhVkuVkKHc7CDVIQFjAPegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Fconference%2F2019%2Fpreliminary%2Fpaper%2F7Gh5BfDh&usg=AOvVaw3H5vaP-QjAnF6IjFA9RyPR

Something I'd like to see (I have seen these studies before) is why there's a difference. Not trying to prove a point beyond that if we know the cause we can work on fixing it.

 

[AMEHigh]

Something I'd like to see (I have seen these studies before) is why there's a difference. Not trying to prove a point beyond that if we know the cause we can work on fixing it.

The first study touches on this. It’s likely due to increased trust and communication based on this study and others. Mistrust of the medical system due to past abuses is real. Forced sterilization, the Tuskegee experiment, etc. It’s likely multi-factorial.

 

[deleted87051]

Trump has a complete disregard for training, expertise and experience of his own advisors so it is not a surprise that he has no regard for the expertise of physicians. It’s a logical extension of his extreme populism. Everybody is an expert according to the stable genius.



“The executive order gives HHS a 1-year deadline to propose a regulation that Trump describes as intended to let healthcare professionals spend more time with patients.
This regulation is meant to ensure that services, whether done by physicians, physician assistants (PAs), or nurse practitioners, "are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician's occupation," the order said.
The order also tasks HHS with proposing a regulation to end what Trump called Medicare's "burdensome" requirements that are "more stringent" than federal and state laws require. The president intends to remove barriers that keep some personnel "from practicing at the top of their profession."

Trump Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs

An executive order signed Thursday adds to an expanding reconsideration of how Medicare pays different kinds of healthcare professionals.

www.medscape.com

 

[vector2]

Trump has a complete disregard for training, expertise and experience of his own advisors so it is not a surprise that he has no regard for the expertise of physicians.

You're absolutely right on this point, unfortunately the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle are totally clueless about the scope of practice for NP/PAs. Letting midlevels "practice at the top of their profession" makes for a good soundbite and on the surface appears to save money, ergo it keeps rearing its ugly head in bipartisan policy discussions.

 

[medgator]

This should poll well for 2020 assuming Trump's still in office and Republican nominee next year....

There Is No Plan B for ISIS Prisoners

As Turkey stokes chaos in northern Syria, the U.S. has no new options to deal with the ISIS prisoners held there—or what to do if they escape.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[jw3600]

I think every Trump supporter in this thread’s salary should be lowered to that of an NP. That’s what he wants for you guys. That’s what you’ll get.

 

[doctalaughs]

The first study touches on this. It’s likely due to increased trust and communication based on this study and others. Mistrust of the medical system due to past abuses is real. Forced sterilization, the Tuskegee experiment, etc. It’s likely multi-factorial.

Interesting study, thanks for linking it. In the results they directly say that in the concordant physician-patient groups (ie black physicians treating black patients) there was not more testing or resources allocated, so racism doesn’t seem to account for the difference - rather as you say - they speculate that more trust led to better outcomes? Also, interestingly, they didn’t find any difference in mortality in other racial mis-pairings (only white doctors treating black patients).

I would be interested if this study has been replicated and how large the set of meta-data is altogether to show a definitive trend. Also if it stands true the only problem was black-white mispairings in other studies (ie does a black patient have equal results with an Asian doctor?)

However, even if this is correct, I think the right answer is to increase minority representation by early education and increasing academic achievement, rather than arbitrarily lowering the bar for a skin color.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I think every Trump supporter in this thread’s salary should be lowered to that of an NP. That’s what he wants for you guys. That’s what you’ll get.

OK, then Warren/Sanders supporters should have their salary lowered to what UK doctors make.

 

[AMEHigh]

Interesting study, thanks for linking it. In the results they directly say that in the concordant physician-patient groups (ie black physicians treating black patients) there was not more testing or resources allocated, so racism doesn’t seem to account for the difference - rather as you say - they speculate that more trust led to better outcomes? Also, interestingly, they didn’t find any difference in mortality in other racial mis-pairings (only white doctors treating black patients).

I would be interested if this study has been replicated and how large the set of meta-data is altogether to show a definitive trend. Also if it stands true the only problem was black-white mispairings in other studies (ie does a black patient have equal results with an Asian doctor?)

However, even if this is correct, I think the right answer is to increase minority representation by early education and increasing academic achievement, rather than arbitrarily lowering the bar for a skin color.

Yep lots to think about.

In regards to your comment about "lowering the bar." I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Are you saying that black people are stupid? I certainly don’t think I got in to any of my schools and lowered their standards. I’m sure we could go back and forth about this forever. But is a student who gets a 27 on the mcat vs a 32 really going to be a "better" doctor in the long run? (I don’t even know the new mcat scoring). Let’s just assume the black student is the one with the 27. What if they’ve also volunteered a million hours, took care of their dying mother and started a science organization on campus? But looking at purely the mcat score that’s lowering the bar? All black people that are getting in to college and med school and grad school are lowering the bar? I think being a smart and productive person in society requires a variety of skills/personalities and a sat of 1600, mcat score of 45 and usmle score of 260 isn’t the only way to be the "best."

Lastly, let’s not forget about all the privileged people that get in due to "who they know" aka rich. How is that not also "lowering the bar"? And we know which students those are more likely to be!

 

[medgator]

OK, then Warren/Sanders supporters should have their salary lowered to what UK doctors make.

Canadian doctors do fine

 

[AMEHigh]

And speaking of lowering the bar, I’m pretty sure that Obama did not lower the bar for the standards to become president, while our current president on the other hand....

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Canadian doctors do fine

Have you not wondered why they make way more than every other single payer country's doctors?

 

[medgator]

Have you not wondered why they make way more than every other single payer country's doctors?

They have a parallel private system?

I doubt m4a would ever kill the private system here. Canada figured that out

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters (Published 2006)

The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise. Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients...

www.nytimes.com

 

[deleted941485]

They have a parallel private system?

I doubt m4a would ever kill the private system here. Canada figured that out

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters (Published 2006)

The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise. Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients...

www.nytimes.com

I highly doubt this is a robust aspect of their system despite the title

And you can bet your ass the central
Planners will be trying their very hardest to eliminate them and shame the doctors working there.

 

[medgator]

I highly doubt this is a robust aspect of their system despite the title

Personally, I don't want m4a, but given GOP obstruction without a solution, despite the clear irony of their opposition to the individual mandate, I think it is an unfortunate inevitability.

I would have much preferred the ACA

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

They have a parallel private system?

I doubt m4a would ever kill the private system here. Canada figured that out

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters (Published 2006)

The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise. Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients...

www.nytimes.com

To quote Snopes, that's half true.

In Canada, if the public plan covers something private insurance is not allowed to cover it. That said, there is a lot of stuff that the public plan doesn't cover: medications, optometry, private hospital rooms.

Bernie's M4A plan is similar except that he wants Medicare to continue to cover most of what it already does - basically he just wants to expand coverage and not allow private insurance to cover what Medicare does. There's 2 problems with that. First, in the US currently if you accept Medicare you are required to bill Medicare for Medicare patients. You can completely opt out, but you can't do some Medicare and some cash pay. Second, if Medicare covers pretty much everything there's no place for private insurance.

Now I think we can all agree that even IF Bernie wins its unlikely he'll actually get all of that. But unlikely isn't a guarantee that he won't. We also still have no idea what Warren's plan is as she hasn't released specifics of her plan.

Personally, I don't want m4a, but given GOP obstruction without a solution, despite the clear irony of their opposition to the individual mandate, I think it is an unfortunate inevitability.

I would have much preferred the ACA

That's why I'm hoping for Biden, he's likely to just fix the ACA without completely overhauling the system.

 

[medgator]

.

Now I think we can all agree that even IF Bernie wins its unlikely he'll actually get all of that. But unlikely isn't a guarantee that he won't. We also still have no idea what Warren's plan is as she hasn't released specifics of her plan.



That's why I'm hoping for Biden, he's likely to just fix the ACA without completely overhauling the system.

Presidents don't write legislation, they sign it. I suspect a more moderate Congress will try to fix the aca and maybe add a public option or something to please the left

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Presidents don't write legislation, they sign it. I suspect a more moderate Congress will try to fix the aca and maybe add a public option or something to please the left

And its the details of that part that could be a problem and makes me a bit nervous.

I don't love the ACA (and the tweaking I would want isn't likely to happen) but its not awful.

 

[medgator]

I don't love the ACA (and the tweaking I would want isn't likely to happen) but its not awful.

This is what Republicans stupidly ignored for the last decade and when they got up to the plate in 2016, they choked, ignoring how well the ACA polls among the population when you look at its various parts

 

[deleted643396]

But you ARE justifying “taking advantages away” though based on race and sex right?

Your mental gymnastics are amusing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Advantages that existed solely from discriminating against other people. Using my simple baseball example, whites had the advantage and playing professional baseball without having to compete against the black players until Jackie Robinson came along. Now black players are able to play baseball, so that advantage is taken away.

Your claim that white males have to face a gauntlet of discrimination that even remotely comes close to what women and minorities have to face is beyond laughable and shows me you have no intention to discuss race and gender seriously. I’m sorry, you come off sounding like a petulant child, and I’ve learned it’s not useful to debate children.

 

[deleted643396]

Generally speaking I don't think we are being discriminated against either. There are certainly times of late where we are, but they are the exception at the moment.

The concern from where I sit is that this appears to be gaining some traction by which I mean those rare instances are getting positive reactions.

I’m not sure what instances you are referring to, but maybe those positive reactions may have something to do with the fact that white males haven’t exactly been welcoming of minorities and women to the segments of society and our economy that they used enjoy all to themselves. They tend to do things like whine about “reverse discrimination.”

 

[deleted941485]

And its the details of that part that could be a problem and makes me a bit nervous.

I don't love the ACA (and the tweaking I would want isn't likely to happen) but its not awful.

Meh even a public option anyone with a brain in HC should oppose. You are just opting for the slow death as opposed to the quick one. Why please the left? Dems just want to get back into the White House. What are they gonna do if their guy isn’t as leftward as they thought he/she was? Vote for a republican? Screw them

You like the ACA? I don’t get it. All the struggling and complaining and nonsense that’s happened over the last decade has been a direct or indirect consequence of this legislation. Mandatory cuts to Medicare every year, meaningful use, loss of autonomy, the killing of PP, mega mergers, the new obsession with benchmarking everything to Medicare. I found out yesterday OON patients even with private insurance will only reimburse at Medicare rates.

And what I’m supposed to be thankful Obama wasn’t as bad? He left office right when this crap started to hit hard and now the govt is even more seized up. Obama and his army of pedigree bean counter health economists knew exactly what they were doing when they constructed this nonsense.

The ACA was a joke and a detriment to physicians. The fact that it’s not as bad as what’s going on now doesn’t make me feel any more nostalgic.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You like the ACA? I don’t get it. All the struggling and complaining and nonsense that’s happened over the last decade has been a direct or indirect consequence of this legislation. Mandatory cuts to Medicare every year, meaningful use, loss of autonomy, the killing of PP, mega mergers, the new obsession with benchmarking everything to Medicare. I found out yesterday OON patients even with private insurance will only reimburse at Medicare rates.

You're reading comprehension needs work:

And its the details of that part that could be a problem and makes me a bit nervous.

I don't love the ACA (and the tweaking I would want isn't likely to happen) but its not awful.

Where do you see anything about me liking it?

 

[deleted941485]

You're reading comprehension needs work:


Where do you see anything about me liking it?

Relax bud no need to assail my reading comprehension. The hang up was those last 4 words. That’s exactly the type of rationale that got us to this point in the first place

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I’m not sure what instances you are referring to, but maybe those positive reactions may have something to do with the fact that white males haven’t exactly been welcoming of minorities and women to the segments of society and our economy that they used enjoy all to themselves. They tend to do things like whine about “reverse discrimination.”

Eindhoven University summoned to explain 'discriminatory' women only jobs policy - DutchNews.nl

The Dutch Institute for Human Rights is to hear a complaint brought against Eindhoven University of Technology for opening a number of jobs to women only, local paper Eindhovens Dagblad said on Tuesday. Anti-discrimination agency Radar told the paper it decided to make the formal protest after...

www.dutchnews.nl

University of Edinburgh equality event bans white people from speaking

'Imagine if this event was called ‘Resisting Blackness' and non-white people were told they could not ask questions, nor access a room because they were the 'wrong' colour.'

metro.co.uk

The racism and sexism of the past (and today, though much less now than it was) is absolutely a problem. But specifically excluding men or white people from stuff like this is problematic. I don't have a good answer other than better early education to put women/minorities on the path to achieve on their own merits.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Relax bud no need to assail my reading comprehension. The hang up was those last 4 words. That’s exactly the type of rationale that got us to this point in the first place

I'm not your bud, guy!

Jokes aside, the ACA isn't awful. In its original form it wasn't great and much of what you mentioned are things I would like to tweak. But its better than M4A and with some changes could be quite good.

 

[Matty44]

Advantages that existed solely from discriminating against other people. Using my simple baseball example, whites had the advantage and playing professional baseball without having to compete against the black players until Jackie Robinson came along. Now black players are able to play baseball, so that advantage is taken away.

Your claim that white males have to face a gauntlet of discrimination that even remotely comes close to what women and minorities have to face is beyond laughable and shows me you have no intention to discuss race and gender seriously. I’m sorry, you come off sounding like a petulant child, and I’ve learned it’s not useful to debate children.

So I guess the streak of making up stuff I said continues....

I in no way ever said “white males are oppressed today just like slaves!!!” What I, and others, have tried to get across to you is that racism and sexism are wrong. Period. It does not matter what happened in the past in that it doesn’t make racism or sexism justified today.

Imagine you are a visitor from a far away land and had no knowledge of US history, or slavery, or racism, or sexism. You come to America and apply for a job. They tell you they would like to hire you, but they can’t because your skin is the wrong color. Do you feel like you’re treated right in that situation? Of course not. Cause it’s racism. Regardless of the past. Regardless of whether or not someone thinks they are leveling the playing field (or whatever wording you gotta say to make your self feel better). Regardless of anything.

It can’t be explained any clearer to you, and if you don’t get it, you probably never will.

IF YOU TREAT TWO PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY BASED OFF OF THEIR SEX OR SKIN COLOR THAT IS SEXISM/RACISM. The end.

It’s really not that hard to understand if you get out of your intersectionality bubble and put on your logic hat for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

Also, your baseball analogy falls flat on its face. If blacks simply weren’t allowed to apply for jobs at one point, and now they are, then your analogy would be apt.

An appropriate analogy for your world view would be: At one point blacks weren’t allowed to play baseball, but now, every team has to make sure they have at least one black outfielder and two black infielders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doctalaughs]

Yep lots to think about.

In regards to your comment about "lowering the bar." I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Are you saying that black people are stupid? I certainly don’t think I got in to any of my schools and lowered their standards. I’m sure we could go back and forth about this forever. But is a student who gets a 27 on the mcat vs a 32 really going to be a "better" doctor in the long run? (I don’t even know the new mcat scoring). Let’s just assume the black student is the one with the 27. What if they’ve also volunteered a million hours, took care of their dying mother and started a science organization on campus? But looking at purely the mcat score that’s lowering the bar? All black people that are getting in to college and med school and grad school are lowering the bar? I think being a smart and productive person in society requires a variety of skills/personalities and a sat of 1600, mcat score of 45 and usmle score of 260 isn’t the only way to be the "best."

Lastly, let’s not forget about all the privileged people that get in due to "who they know" aka rich. How is that not also "lowering the bar"? And we know which students those are more likely to be!

No I’m not saying black people or any racial group is stupid.... there are many other reasons (historical racism, cultural, wealth) why a large academic achievement gap exists between races but it doesn’t change the fact that it DOES exist.

And there are clearly different statistical levels or “bars” of academic achievement set for different races with today’s AA system, and I’m not talking just test scores although everyone jumps on that (comprehensive - including grades and extracurriculars).

Please don’t take that as a personal attack because it’s just a fact (note I said bars set by GROUP, which doesn’t mean it’s true of every individual in that group). Asian bar is set even way higher than white.... which is the crux of the lawsuit against Harvard, which I believe has moral merit.

I’m arguing that having different standards to judge different races (for jobs, schools etc) is wrong, same as it would be wrong for a bank to use different standards for minority loans. As someone said earlier, two wrongs don’t make a right. Rather the high ground principled tactic is to address the underlying reasons why there is a gap in academic achievement... instead of using different standards.

 

[medgator]

Meh even a public option anyone with a brain in HC should oppose. You are just opting for the slow death as opposed to the quick one. Why please the left? Dems just want to get back into the White House. What are they gonna do if their guy isn’t as leftward as they thought he/she was? Vote for a republican? Screw them

You like the ACA? I don’t get it. All the struggling and complaining and nonsense that’s happened over the last decade has been a direct or indirect consequence of this legislation. Mandatory cuts to Medicare every year, meaningful use, loss of autonomy, the killing of PP, mega mergers, the new obsession with benchmarking everything to Medicare. I found out yesterday OON patients even with private insurance will only reimburse at Medicare rates.

And what I’m supposed to be thankful Obama wasn’t as bad? He left office right when this crap started to hit hard and now the govt is even more seized up. Obama and his army of pedigree bean counter health economists knew exactly what they were doing when they constructed this nonsense.

The ACA was a joke and a detriment to physicians. The fact that it’s not as bad as what’s going on now doesn’t make me feel any more nostalgic.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. The ACA was pretty centrist when you think about the bones of it (individual mandate being supported by the heritage foundation, RomneyCare etc).

Inaction will eventually lead to the other side winning. Trump did zero favors to the GOP on healthcare, esp while campaigning

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies