|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 13 2020 21:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 20:52 PoulsenB wrote:On February 13 2020 20:42 Velr wrote:
Better for the average Joe than in the US... That was the entire point.
Sigh…
How do you actually do this in the US? You have no emergency but want something checked, do you kidnap a doctor or throw thousands of dollars at his feet so he makes time to treat you and push others back?
Waiting times aren't there because the state wants them, they exist because doctors can't/won't work more. Doctors sending people home that they don't deem ill, is in general a GOOD thing.
An Ultrasound andsimilar treatments, aren't normally emergencies, so it's totally allright to make an appointment with a doctor and having some time in betweeen. If your actually hurting, you declare an emergency and stuff will go much faster.
All these horror stories people tell about waiting lists are just so staggeringly ignorant when hit with reality. Poland for example has a huge problem with doctor queues (up to 2 years in some instances), however for emergencies care is always provided. My mom had cancer and my dad suffered a seriuos heart attack, they both received necessary care and treatment and are doing well, and it didn't bankrupt my family in the process. Lack of doctors because they emigrated to other EU countries or something else?
Mostly, yeah. Young doctors in the process of obtaining specialisation have to work looong shifts (24h isn't anything extraordinary) for pitifully low wages. Many emigrate abroad so that they can work in better conditions for larger pay. But our governement prefers to give millions of zlotys to the Church or increase funding of their propaganda machine rather than maybe throw some more money to the healthcare system.
|
On February 13 2020 19:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 19:28 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 18:24 Arceus wrote:On February 13 2020 17:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 09:34 Dante08 wrote:On February 12 2020 23:10 Simberto wrote:On February 12 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to30-40% (9) 47% 20-30% (6) 32% 40-50% (3) 16% 50-60% (1) 5% i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes. (0) 0% 19 total votes Your vote: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to (Vote): 20-30%
(Vote): 30-40%
(Vote): 40-50%
(Vote): 50-60%
(Vote): i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes.
In the UK we pay income tax and national insurance (which is supposed to spent on the NHS). In total, when i was working last year, these added up to 12.36%. You haven't left an option for that. I used this tool: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpand a salary of £18,000 for that. Are we going to factor in VAT here too? That 80-90% tax rate on me daily pack of fags does rather add up. I guess if we add VAT you would have to do maths that i don't know how to do (this applies to basically all maths) but it would be 12.36% on income plus 20% on purchases. The problem is that most tax systems are so complicated that it is really hard to get a good answer to the question of how much of your income is spent on taxes. You would basically need to actually look at peoples consumption habits, and possibly average over a reasonable slice of the population. In Germany for example, there are a bunch of different VAT levels, plus some vice taxes. So you can't simply say that you have to pay 20% of the money you earn after taxes as VAT (that would be pretty easy to calculate, simply multiply the money remaining. 60% after income taxes * 80% after VAT means you pay a total of 1-0.8*0.6=52% in taxes), because it depends on what kind of stuff you are buying. If you are buying more food, then there is less VAT onto that stuff. If you are buying lots of booze and cigarettes, you are spending a lot more on taxes. In you example, you would pay a total of about 30% in taxes. (1-(1-0.1236)*0.8)= 0.29888 Don’t forget you guys are comparing countries with MUCH SMALLER populations than the US. Any healthcare program would be much easier to implement in a 20m population country compared to 300m. Brazil has universal healthcare... It isn't great, but it services everyone, even in the remotest of remote locations (of which Brazil has a lot more and harder than the US). Brazil is also faaaaaaaaar poorer than the US. So how come they manage? What do you mean by "manage"? Have you lived in one of those countries? Here in Sweden: terrible doctors (try their best to send you home), crazy queue (3 months for a brain scan, 12 hours for some ultrasound if you are lucky) and very very expensive private clinic if any. Sure they treat infection superfast, cancer detection is great but the general rule of thumb is: let's not be sick. That, or travel to Germany or Finland for way better, faster private help. Some people are begging for help because issues regarding stomach for example are very hard to tell out right. And I pay crazy tax for that, and Sweden only has 10 million population. I have many other traumatic stories but you get the idea. Anyone shouting "free healthcare for yall now!" in a 300million pop country is either lying or shortsighted. Yes, I lived in Brazil. I even used public healthcare there for a year and a half before I caved and got private insurance. It wasn't really a big difference for the general day-to-day stuff, but if I had gotten anything serious it would have been a lot better. Particularly for waiting times on tests. Right now I'm waiting to get anything the doctor can give me to help me sleep through terrible coughing fits from the flu (self-diagnosed, it's worse than a common cold) at the public healthcare in Spain. Once again, people moan and waiting times for non-urgent stuff are pretty bad. But about 10 years ago before the neolibs took all the money out of it because "austerity" and haven't refunded it since, it was a lot better. Once again, I only got private insurance this month and mainly because my wife needs some specialist care and in the public system can only get an appointment every 6 months. She doesn't have anything threatening or urgent, but it does bother her and hopefully access to private clinics can speed the process of finding a cure up. I have also lived in Holland, which has mandatory price-regulated private insurance (I guess what Obamacare was supposed to be?) with tax breaks and subsidies for poor and lower middle class people. It's been a while since I lived there, but my parents seem quite satisfied. Public healthcare isn't a panacea. But if the US were to take all the money they spend on healthcare right now (which is an absurd amount) and use it to structure and fund a public system, I am quite convinced they could continue to provide a similar level of service to those who currently have private insurance... and provide that care for those who currently have nothing. Very much so. Waiting lists are definitely a problem across many different systems. Sometimes it’s a structural problem, sometimes like mental health care over here it does seem mostly due to austerity cuts and is quite counter-productive because those people’s issues and care needs can snowball greatly.
Just gonna pop in and say it's not like the US is without waiting lists either. I had a problem last year I needed surgery for and it took me 2 weeks to see my doctor, another 2-3 weeks to see a specialist, another 3-4 weeks to get an EMG, and a whole month after that to finally get my surgery done.
|
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes".
|
On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes".
And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it.
I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters.
|
On February 14 2020 00:22 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes". And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it. I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters.
You are talking completely out of your ass. Search 1 or 2 pages earlier. There I gave some of the reasons why a well rounded medical education is necessary. And to single out an anaestesiologist for needing less time is especially weird. Those are the people heading the intensive care units and those who make or break ur surgery. They need to have a well rounded understanding of every specialization of surgery, pediatrics, internal medicine, and so on. At least take a believable specialization like eye doctor (whatever the english term is) or occupational medicine.
I would be really interested in how you are going to source things like "most doctors are average at most things but don't excel at something" because that seems to be really hard to determine and in my experience flat out wrong. Specialists at specialized centres are very good at what they do, and GPs are jack-of-all-trades. I don't see the problem here.
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
On February 14 2020 00:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 00:22 Vivax wrote:On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes". And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it. I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters. You are talking completely out of your ass. Search 1 or 2 pages earlier. There I gave some of the reasons why a well rounded medical education is necessary. And to single out an anaestesiologist for needing less time is especially weird. Those are the people heading the intensive care units and those who make or break ur surgery. They need to have a well rounded understanding of every specialization of surgery, pediatrics, internal medicine, and so on. At least take a believable specialization like eye doctor (whatever the english term is) or occupational medicine. I would be really interested in how you are going to source things like "most doctors are average at most things but don't excel at something" because that seems to be really hard to determine and in my experience flat out wrong. Specialists at specialized centres are very good at what they do, and GPs are jack-of-all-trades. I don't see the problem here.
Yeah I think the point in your post.
The amount of surgeons, or even oncologists, calling for Internal specialists because of slightly elevated blood pressure is astounding.
pretty much confirms what I said about average at everything but not superb at much.
Even had an orthopaedist tell me lately that many of his colleagues still don't understand how the neutral-0 system works.
I won't insist if you intend on disagreeing, but my experience so far has simply been that most of the things learned not needed in the daily routines are forgotten, but quicker to re-learn so to say if needed.
I'd rather focus on teaching what's relevant to a daily routine off the bat and have a more accessible healthcare.
|
On February 14 2020 00:22 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes". And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it. I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters.
Your responses demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a physician, and it tells me that you have little to no actual experience with the medical field.
As others have said, there are numerous reasons that physicians need to have a very strong baseline knowledge of all medicine. You simply can't practice medicine, regardless of specialty, without having a strong knowledge of all areas of medicine. A patient isn't a single set of cardiac symptoms where a cardiologist can ignore all other aspects of medicine and medical physiology/pathophysiology. Surgeons don't simply cut people up (the vast majority of their time is not spent in the operating room). Physicians need to have strong foundational knowledge so that they can communicate with each other about medicine and treat their patient beyond their most immediate symptoms. Not only this, but a physician is required to have this baseline knowledge because 1) it's needed to start residency and 2) you can't guarantee what specialty a physician will be in when they start their education. Even if a physician has a specialty, there are many situations where it is either desired or required for a physician to act as a general practitioner, requiring them to have the skills of a physician outside of their immediate specialty.
Calling medicine "heavily romanticized" is ridiculous and completely unfounded. Saying that an anesthesiologist could be trained in three years when it is one of the most competitive specialties in medicine with an average of four years of residency after medical school is even more ridiculous.
pretty much confirms what I said about average at everything but not superb at much.
Even had an orthopaedist tell me lately that many of his colleagues still don't understand how the neutral-0 system works.
I won't insist if you intend on disagreeing, but my experience so far has simply been that most of the things learned not needed in the daily routines are forgotten, but quicker to re-learn so to say if needed.
I'd rather focus on teaching what's relevant to a daily routine off the bat and have a more accessible healthcare.
Your solution would do very little to create more accessible healthcare and it would simply create worse physicians. All it does is try to turn skilled workers into more specialized robots that have no skills beyond their immediate specialty. It's a capitalist's wet dream and is also a large contributor to workforce problems. It's a philosophy that frequently falls flat on its face when actually implemented.
As someone who is a medical professional and works with physicians of many specialties on a daily basis, I also find your anecdotes about physician's knowledge (or lack thereof) quite hard to believe.
|
On February 14 2020 00:22 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes". And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it. I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters.
Specialty training for anesthesiology (i.e. the stuff you do AFTER medical school) is typically around 4 years (at least it is in Scandinavia, UK and USA - some a little longer, some a little shorter). But with your great insight I'm sure it could be cut down to just 3 years altogether, including the stuff learned at medical school.
|
Your responses demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a physician, and it tells me that you have little to no actual experience with the medical field.
Skip the ad hominem, you don't know me.
You simply can't practice medicine, regardless of specialty, without having a strong knowledge of all areas of medicine.
I disagree. 1. It's too circumstantial depending on what the patient needs. 2. Work is shared between specialists.
A patient isn't a single set of cardiac symptoms where a cardiologist can ignore all other aspects of medicine and medical physiology/pathophysiology.
A cardiologist is in the field of internal medicine. Internal medicine is pretty much the field where you're supposed to know about everything. Jack of all trades by choice so to say.
Surgeons don't simply cut people up (the vast majority of their time is not spent in the operating room)
Yes, the rest of the time they plan the surgery by reviewing the imaging and consider complications arising from the patients medication. Did I claim anything else or say something as gross as "just cut people up"?
Physicians need to have strong foundational knowledge so that they can communicate with each other about medicine and treat their patient beyond their most immediate symptoms.
No argument there, doesn't mean a surgeon should have to know what a dermatologist does. The latter will perform skin surgeries.
Not only this, but a physician is required to have this baseline knowledge because 1) it's needed to start residency and 2) you can't guarantee what specialty a physician will be in when they start their education.
They need to have the knowledge because laws and economic circumstances demand it when it's those we are debating? That's almost like saying tobacco is bad but it's legal so it's alright.
Even if a physician has a specialty, there are many situations where it is either desired or required for a physician to act as a general practitioner, requiring them to have the skills of a physician outside of their immediate specialty.
Good point. Every physician should be able to treat an immediate emergency that doesn't require special equipment. Still don't think you need to learn about every single field for that.
|
I love that yor argument boils down to: "We should have worse trained doctors!" not cutting costs where they are actually ridiculous.
|
Mechanical engineer here. I wouldn't say my education measures up to what medical folks go through, that is a fucking gauntlet and people who push through it all are badasses, but, mine was still a 5 year program that covers a ton of bases across all the different fields of engineering, when most of them won't end up being a critical part of my day to day work.
I am not about to say my program was bloated and can only be done in 2 years or whatever. I think that's a bunch of BS. No matter what you end up specializing in as an engineer, you still need to have a baseline knowledge in a wide variety of fields, and you need to understand where your knowledge fits into the bigger picture. Otherwise you're a useful idiot. Engineers of different specialties need to work together on any big project, and to do that they need to be able to interface with one another through a base of common knowledge. More than that, you need to understand the context of how your specialty fits into the greater paradigm so that you can check yourself when you're in doubt, and understand whether what you're looking at makes sense. You cannot just be a cog in the machine that only knows a limited set of processes that directly pertain to your focus. Any time something happens in the real world that you're not expecting, you need to be able to flex and adapt. Or else you break.
I'd welcome being told so if I'm full of it, but I think the same thing applies to medicine. It goes back to something our conservative friends bring up from time to time, about the merits of a well-rounded liberal education, versus just going to trade school and doing one thing with your life. There's a reason people usually lean toward one and not the other.
|
It saddens me to say this but based off that poll it’s not looking good for the Bern. Even assuming all Warren votes will go to Sanders, by the time all the neoliberal votes and progressive votes consolidate under their respective candidates, progressives will be outnumbered. Only hope is that all establishment candidates continue to stay in as long as possible, but as it gets closer to the end of the primaries I think we’ll see them come together.
Also, I feel like Bloomberg’s controversial statements about minorities and crime are going to help him (with left to moderate populists) more than hurt him (with further left progressives whose vote he’d never get anyway in the primary, or still likely to get in the general). Further, I think given the swinginess of the populist voting bloc compared to the leftist/progressive voting bloc, it might actually be an effective political strategy to for the Dem candidate to come off as a little racist in the general. Again, it makes me sad to say it, but it seems to be the case.
|
Especially considering that we are talking about the US.
Who don't have better trained doctors than the rest of the world, but who still pay about 50% more for the same results. Before you start completely revamping how you train doctors, you should try to figure out why that is, and fix that. (The reason is the shitty exploitative private healthcare insurance system)
This is something that, while not easily fixed, is a lot easier to change than completely changing how doctors are trained. It also has a lot fewer possible negative effects.
|
wow, the fact that someone comes in and claims we should train just anesthesiologists and get them in on the fast track literally just blew my mind. Anesthesiology isnt mixing cocktails.. smh...
|
On February 14 2020 00:55 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 00:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote:On February 14 2020 00:22 Vivax wrote:On February 13 2020 22:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:
First off, whoever said that the solution is to change medical education to increase doctor availability, this is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason that medical education is as long and as comprehensive as it is. Physician shortages are due to 1) education cost (in the U.S.), 2) how horribly all healthcare professionals get treated by administrative staff in the healthcare industry, and 3) how poorly primary care physicians get paid relative to the cost of becoming one (again, in the U.S. at least).
Second, as others have said, the U.S. pays far more for healthcare with either the same or worse outcomes in pretty much any field (we have marginally better outcomes with cancer). Not only this, people always say "but wait times!", yet the U.S. has comparable wait times to many countries. As Gahlo said, people frequently have to wait months to have an appointment with a specialist, and several weeks just to see their PCP. This, combined with the fact that healthcare is so expensive, leads patients to commonly use emergency departments as their primary care. This means that emergency departments in large metro areas generally have anywhere from 3-12 hour wait times in triage. There are many documented cases of this resulting in patients suffering harmful consequences due to waiting.
Basically every big problem that conservatives bring up with implementing a better healthcare system is a myth or wildly blown out of proportion. There is no excuse for the U.S. having one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world. It is still intact purely due to selfish capitalist interests, fear of change, and an irrational hatred of the word "taxes". And what would that reason be? Seems more to me like the only reason is purely keeping up a holier than thou tradition. Medicine is a heavily romanticized field. There are already entry tests and rather hard first years to guarantee that it isn't drooling idiots getting into it. I'm rather sure an anesthesiologist would be able to learn all he needs within 3 years without the rest of the baggage. Instead it is asked of doctors that they become jack-of-all-trades, which ends up with them being average at most things, but not excel at something. The age you learn something at matters. You are talking completely out of your ass. Search 1 or 2 pages earlier. There I gave some of the reasons why a well rounded medical education is necessary. And to single out an anaestesiologist for needing less time is especially weird. Those are the people heading the intensive care units and those who make or break ur surgery. They need to have a well rounded understanding of every specialization of surgery, pediatrics, internal medicine, and so on. At least take a believable specialization like eye doctor (whatever the english term is) or occupational medicine. I would be really interested in how you are going to source things like "most doctors are average at most things but don't excel at something" because that seems to be really hard to determine and in my experience flat out wrong. Specialists at specialized centres are very good at what they do, and GPs are jack-of-all-trades. I don't see the problem here. Yeah I think the point in your post. The amount of surgeons, or even oncologists, calling for Internal specialists because of slightly elevated blood pressure is astounding.
pretty much confirms what I said about average at everything but not superb at much.Even had an orthopaedist tell me lately that many of his colleagues still don't understand how the neutral-0 system works. I won't insist if you intend on disagreeing, but my experience so far has simply been that most of the things learned not needed in the daily routines are forgotten, but quicker to re-learn so to say if needed. I'd rather focus on teaching what's relevant to a daily routine off the bat and have a more accessible healthcare.
This is a complete misunderstanding. It means quite the opposite. The doctors are way too specialized and unable to solve basic health problems of their patients and have to call in someone else which is VERY expensive and time consuming. Instead of having a broader education that would allow them to just solve it by themselves.
I don't know any orthopaedist who doesn't know about neutral-0. And I know a lot of orthopaedists.
Even the surgeon should have a basic udnerstanding of dermatology to decide whether something is a basic problem like fungal infection, neurodermtitis or whether he should involve someone more informed. For this it is important to have a vague understanding of what constitutes a relevant dermatological problem. For that the 4 weeks you actually have dermaotlogy is sufficient and not really too much. You don't learn about skin-surgery techniques or specific indications for specific treatments.
|
On February 14 2020 01:39 Ryzel wrote:
It saddens me to say this but based off that poll it’s not looking good for the Bern. Even assuming all Warren votes will go to Sanders, by the time all the neoliberal votes and progressive votes consolidate under their respective candidates, progressives will be outnumbered. Only hope is that all establishment candidates continue to stay in as long as possible, but as it gets closer to the end of the primaries I think we’ll see them come together.
Also, I feel like Bloomberg’s controversial statements about minorities and crime are going to help him (with left to moderate populists) more than hurt him (with further left progressives whose vote he’d never get anyway in the primary, or still likely to get in the general). Further, I think given the swinginess of the populist voting bloc compared to the leftist/progressive voting bloc, it might actually be an effective political strategy to for the Dem candidate to come off as a little racist in the general. Again, it makes me sad to say it, but it seems to be the case.
I think Sanders going against Bloomberg puts in stark contrast the people that want Bernie's policy (or more) and those that say they want it but find themselves instead supporting a Republican billionaire oligarch because he's a bit more rational than the current one .
|
On February 14 2020 01:39 Ryzel wrote:
It saddens me to say this but based off that poll it’s not looking good for the Bern. Even assuming all Warren votes will go to Sanders, by the time all the neoliberal votes and progressive votes consolidate under their respective candidates, progressives will be outnumbered. Only hope is that all establishment candidates continue to stay in as long as possible, but as it gets closer to the end of the primaries I think we’ll see them come together.
Also, I feel like Bloomberg’s controversial statements about minorities and crime are going to help him (with left to moderate populists) more than hurt him (with further left progressives whose vote he’d never get anyway in the primary, or still likely to get in the general). Further, I think given the swinginess of the populist voting bloc compared to the leftist/progressive voting bloc, it might actually be an effective political strategy to for the Dem candidate to come off as a little racist in the general. Again, it makes me sad to say it, but it seems to be the case.
People don't vote in primaries for policy. Well they do but you'll hear it time and time again they vote for stage presence. If they "like" them. It's not quite a progressive vs moderate split of voters not all will transfer like that. Just like how disaffected Burnie voters in 2016 voted for Trump.
|
On February 14 2020 01:33 Velr wrote:
I love that yor argument boils down to: "We should have worse trained doctors!" not cutting costs where they are actually ridiculous.
In general that argument feels very neoliberal to me. It goes through the exact same cadence of "yes this thing is a big problem" and follows it with "But let's not acknowledge why it's a problem or actually do anything to solve it". It's gaslight-y.
|
South Carolina looking pretty great for Bernie right now. If he takes SC and Nevada, we very well may see a crushing super Tuesday victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
