| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2013 04:36:40 PM · #476 |
Really, though, it raises an important point. The medical profession is among the highest in requirements of training, regulation, and risk (not necessarily to life but to security). While it remains so, it should command among the highest in renumeration.
PA's are essentially physicians with less training and some less risk. They are, therefore, cheaper to society. It may be the way to go, but it will come with some "cost". |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 04:49:25 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I respectfully ask that you retract your implication that care by a PA (or NP, or any other provider qualified to provide that level of care) is "slightly substandard" ... I assure you my clients do not think so. |
Given a reasonable workload, and appropriate cases, yes, a PA is just fine. No issues there.
Given an unreasonable workload, and inappropriate cases where a fully qualified physician should be involved, then I'd say that "slightly" might be extraneous. |
Part of the training as a PA/NP is how to avoid handling "inappropriate" cases — and you are required to have a fully licensed physician available for consultation/referral.
There would be no shortage of care available if primary care physicians were paid similarly to (for example) cosmetic surgeons ... |
But our healthcare costs are already much higher than any other country by GDP, and we're not particularly healthy. Would you really suggest that it should be more expensive still?
Further, as to your first point - exactly how many PA's can a single MD be available to for consultation/referral at once? Have you ever heard of a PA being pressured to not bother the MD with cases that maybe the MD should be looking at?
I mean, plenty of people get plenty of training on plenty of things, and then disregard most of what they were trained on and replace it with what they "know".
Message edited by author 2013-10-04 16:52:40. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 04:52:04 PM · #478 |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 04:53:20 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Further, as to your first point - exactly how many PA's can a single MD be available to for consultation/referral at once? |
In California I think it is two.
But remember, this argument isn't really about health care, it's about trying to dismantle the governement and the tyranny of the minority.
Message edited by author 2013-10-04 16:54:51. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 04:55:49 PM · #480 |
Muahaha! That slide must indicate I make more than $405,000/year (yaaa!) or less than $170,000/year (booo!) Or I'm just not important enough to mention (booo!) |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 04:57:02 PM · #481 |
Yeah. Poor, poor doctors how do they live on that?
Not a pretty graph, but do go compare with other science salaries.
A Geophysicist might pull down $170k a year at the peak of his employment. A chemist? Maybe $120 after a graduate degree and 10 years in industry.
What about a biologist? They're lucky to EVER see six figures a year. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 05:05:35 PM · #482 |
| This is only my opinion, but I really think a doctor shouldn't be a doctor for the money. They should be in it to help people. It should be their goal. I think the government should pay for the education needed to become a doctor, for those with the intelligence and drive to do it. They shouldn't pay a dime for the education. But then they should make a set salary, one that will give them a decent, comfortable life but not make them millionaires. I really think this is the only real solution to making health care work. Of course doctors don't want to give up the big salaries, the McMansions, the expensive cars. And if they are in it for the money, they will fight to keep things as they are. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 05:09:19 PM · #483 |
Only fools go in for science and deal with people and things — smart people become CEOs ... :-( |
|
|
|
10/05/2013 12:58:50 PM · #484 |
|
|
|
10/05/2013 01:09:02 PM · #485 |
| Has everyone else noticed Art's new profile photo... all intellectual like and stuff. I'm really looking forward to his next post here. |
|
|
|
10/05/2013 02:22:17 PM · #486 |
Dave Ross: Just When It Couldn't Get Any Weirder
Originally posted by Linked Article:
And a reporter had what I thought was a pretty good question for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, "How are you picking and choosing what should get funding first?"
Cantor replied, "Well, we are going to go forward with trying to address situations that are in critical stages."
That sounds like they're saying - we will decide who to help next based on how desperate they are.
Everything's upside down! The cause of this crisis, Obamacare, turns out to be so popular, Americans have stormed the websites as if they were selling Miley Cyrus tickets, while members who warned us of Obamacare's flaws are themselves deciding which Americans are sufficiently desperate to be worth saving.
The same people who warned us of the death panels - have become them! |
|
|
|
|
10/05/2013 02:34:45 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Has everyone else noticed Art's new profile photo... all intellectual like and stuff. I'm really looking forward to his next post here. |
"Breaking Bad" is INTELLECTUAL? |
|
|
|
10/05/2013 02:43:55 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Has everyone else noticed Art's new profile photo... all intellectual like and stuff. I'm really looking forward to his next post here. |
"Breaking Bad" is INTELLECTUAL? |
Heh.. It was a quote from Jesse I think. |
|
|
|
10/05/2013 05:31:28 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
forward to his next post here. |
"Breaking Bad" is INTELLECTUAL? [/quote]
Be fair my friend... after viewing the ongoing political debacle, that may very well be the case for some folks. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 02:30:06 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Has everyone else noticed Art's new profile photo... all intellectual like and stuff. I'm really looking forward to his next post here. |
"Breaking Bad" is INTELLECTUAL? |
Perhaps bohemka was being ironic? :-) |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 07:39:08 PM · #491 |
| Well it was said in an attempt at humor, but I honestly had no idea it was a Breaking Bad reference. I'm not really up to speed! |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 12:43:53 PM · #492 |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 12:52:20 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Well it was said in an attempt at humor, but I honestly had no idea it was a Breaking Bad reference. I'm not really up to speed! |
Seriously?
You didn't notice that it's a picture of Walter White with Art's face, and didn't intentionally paraphrase Jesse? That's even more awesome! :D |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 01:03:39 PM · #494 |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 01:05:14 PM · #495 |
Obama needs to learn to negotiate.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2013 01:51:57 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Well it was said in an attempt at humor, but I honestly had no idea it was a Breaking Bad reference. I'm not really up to speed! |
Seriously?
You didn't notice that it's a picture of Walter White with Art's face, and didn't intentionally paraphrase Jesse? That's even more awesome! :D |
I know, right?! When I read the comment all I could do was hear Jesse telling Walt he was "all intellectual-like and stuff, yo" |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 01:59:01 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Obama needs to learn to negotiate. |
Negotiate what? The funding bill was already agreed upon, and it was at the levels Republicans wanted. Democrats haven't asked for anything beyond that and Republicans haven't offered anything. Are you suggesting the majority should negotiate which policy demands to accept from a faction of the minority in return for something both sides need anyway? That's like agreeing to share water at a desert oasis and then arriving only to have one party threaten to poison the well unless he also gets your car, your bank account and/or your wife. Stupidly, the same party is also declaring that it will not allow the well to be poisoned, so what is the incentive to negotiate? |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 02:28:50 PM · #498 |
Are you kidding me?????????
What about the debt limit debate. Republicans have been fighting with Obama on one thing or anoher since he was elected....You know why. Because he doesnt negotiate.
He is also trying to make things as painful as possible with the shutdown.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2013 02:39:54 PM · #499 |
Bottom line is that the Senate has voted on every bill sent them by the House, and the House has REFUSED TO VOTE on the bill sent them by the Senate.
Actually, the House would love to vote ... but the Speaker will not let them.
Message edited by author 2013-10-07 14:40:42. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 03:12:35 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Are you kidding me?????????
What about the debt limit debate. Republicans have been fighting with Obama on one thing or anoher since he was elected....You know why. Because he doesnt negotiate.
He is also trying to make things as painful as possible with the shutdown. |
As with quite possibly every single post of this type you've ever made, your belief is sharply at odds with reality. There *is* no debt limit debate. The 14th Amendment (there's more that just two, you know) basically declares that the debt is not subject to debate. The debt limit pays for bills that the House already voted to spend. You can debate future spending all you want, but you still have to pay the credit card for what you already bought. It's non-negotiable, yet Republicans appeal to ignorance by pretending it's an authorization to spend more in the future.
Republicans have been obstructing Obama since day one regardless of the position he takes... even if, in the case of the ACA, it was their own proposal to begin with. As an obvious repudiation of your "he doesn't negotiate" nonsense, the ACA includes 192 Republican amendments including an agreement to drop the important single-payer option. The only reason Boehner went ahead with this particular fight is that Obama DID give in to their hostage demands in 2011, so they figured he would "negotiate" this time, too. It was a reckless gamble, and now they're trapped. If not for the insular effect of Fox News, talk radio and internet blogs on gullible followers who blindly accept the spin of "negotiations," "government slimdown" and false projection, Boehner would have been forced to fold already. He'll have to eventually because the Senate and President will not allow these annual necessities to become Christmas for whatever policy presents the minority wants. Boehner might as well be asking for the moon because it's equally unattainable and not subject to negotiation.
This shutdown isn't more painful than any other (aside from the fact that some funding allocations had already been made in past episodes), and the implication that making things more painful helps Democrats doesn't even make sense unless Republicans are acknowledging blame for the shutdown. I saw a Breitbart propaganda piece yesterday that made a big deal about closing an offshore fishing area because it's open ocean. This sort of thing relies upon the lack of critical thinking among their readership, as if it makes a bit of difference whether a national park is open water or open land.
Message edited by author 2013-10-07 18:17:49. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 05:48:50 AM EDT.
