is Democratic ticket a nightmare for physicians!!!

[skb21]

Keith,
"... a couple of queers getting married"????? Man, are you serious??? How did you get into medical school??? You must've used some restraint and kept your troubling views about other HUMAN BEINGS quiet during your interview... maybe you should practice some of that much needed restraint here (and from now on). Very scary...

Reminds me: I took care of a homosexual patient the other day with HIV. He was a really nice guy. Hope he never comes under your "care."

I'll be sure to tell him the reason he is in his situation if I ever have to "care" for him. I should use treat instead of care, because I could care less about a f*ggot.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Tas]

I'm just a lowly med student, so I certainly don't have full understanding of the plight of physicians in todays current litigious environment, but... I seem to recall that John Edwards, while running for president, proposed a three strikes and your out for trial lawyers who present frivilous lawsuits. Again, I am not an expert on medical economics, but it seems that malpractice could be lowered if the amount of lawsuits that insurance companies have to deal with is minimized.

I googled for the three strikes thing and couldn't find it. I also checked out the carry website and it was surprisingly lacking in details, but I didn't find mention of the three-strikes there either.

The only three-strikes thing I could find referencing Kerry/Edwards was actually located right here on SDN

 

[CJMPre-Med]

CJMPre-Med,
Again, and to answer an earlier question of yours to me- What is so funny about you is the way you write (do you talk like that, too?). You come across as very overbearing. Take it easy... and have a friend write your personal statement for med school.

BTW: It was "vacuous musings" this time... Most normal people just don't talk like that.

Oh, I don't talk like that out loud either (referring to my last post); in my head, however, is another story-- I do speak like that in my mind for the most part, though it depends upon what I'm pondering at the moment. If anything, I'm actually too informal in speech, because I'm generally not one to be "showy" in front of people by using big words and such. I guess my writing represents my pure thoughts, though (without the need to "hold back" for fear of appearing too uppity ) , so that's why it reads like it does.

And the "vacuous musings" thing was just so that the post would sound sufficiently condescending, seeing as how I didn't appreciate what he said and implied about me. Nothing more or less-- you shouldn't read too much into it. I do appreciate the feedback, however, as I generally try not to rub people the wrong way, so this will help me rectify some of my foibles in that regard.

I'll be sure to tell him the reason he is in his situation if I ever have to "care" for him. I should use treat instead of care, because I could care less about a f*ggot.

God...

I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle either (philosophically/ethically), but that's just an incredibly inhumane and unjustifiable attitude to have.

 

[Paulista]

As a group, we are most rigorously trained maybe more than any other profession.

We undergo longest training. I don't think we need the watch dogs and malpractice lawyers to shape up the course of our prefession.

Should malpractice cases used as a winning lottery ticket???
A middle class worker in the US would not make 15 million in their lifetime.
But, Jury awards in Malpractice cases can surmount to millions.

I don't think American economy can keep up with this trend.

Chasing after every little mistake made by physicians is not the solution for faltering wages.

I do agree political choice for our nation is more than just malpractice issue for Physicians. However, if you care enough about keeping the sanity in our profession, you have to vouch for our profession's future.

Mr Edwards is against reform, and he continues to support malpractice lawyers. Why are we, physicians, not wise enough to help our profession.

We have to support malpractice reform!

 

[trapper john]

It is amazing how anyone who is even contemplating medicine as a career can brush the issue of the medical malpractice crisis aside with crap like us making "so much money".

Wanna talk about obscene amounts of money? Edwards made TENS OF MILLIONS off medical malpractice! I suppose that's OK???

 

[Astroman]

At last PreMed, we agree. Keith Box, PCSOM 2008, is a really sad person. I don't think I've ever come across someone so viciously homophobic.

And Keith, I think you meant you could NOT care less about those people. If you COULD care less, you obviously must care at least a little... which you so disturbingly do not (pretty condescending eh, PreMed?)...

Keith Box's ad when he finishes school (if they let him):
Keith Box, D.O. is now accepting heterosexual, conservative, white, rich, Republican, pro-life patients in his new practice in Smalltown, Mississippi. I could care less about the rest of ya.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

Keith Box's ad when he finishes school (if they let him):
Keith Box, D.O. is now accepting heterosexual, conservative, white, rich, Republican, pro-life patients in his new practice in Smalltown, Mississippi. I could care less about the rest of ya.

And Keith, I think you meant you could NOT care less about those people. If you COULD care less, you obviously must care at least a little... which you so disturbingly do not (pretty condescending eh, PreMed?)...

I'm shivering over here...

 

[skb21]

At last PreMed, we agree. Keith Box, PCSOM 2008, is a really sad person. I don't think I've ever come across someone so viciously homophobic.

And Keith, I think you meant you could NOT care less about those people. If you COULD care less, you obviously must care at least a little... which you so disturbingly do not (pretty condescending eh, PreMed?)...

Keith Box's ad when he finishes school (if they let him):
Keith Box, D.O. is now accepting heterosexual, conservative, white, rich, Republican, pro-life patients in his new practice in Smalltown, Mississippi. I could care less about the rest of ya.

I'm glad you can infer all of that, seeing as how I never stated that I wouldn't treat those patients. If a homo can pay, I'll treat him. I'll fix his leg. I'll fix his arm. I'll take extra precautions to protect myself as well.

As far as this other stuff, I've run the numbers with an orthopod in the area that I plan on joining upon completion of residency. I can bring in $300,000 profit with a medicaid only clinic in a rural setting. That's on top of what I draw from the private pay patients. I'm willing to sacrafice that $300,000 profit and treat the elderly and children for FREE if it means that those that abuse the system are cut out.

 

[Astroman]

Alright Keith, I've had about enough of your crap. As I type, I'm entering a reminder in my handheld for October 1, 2007. I plan to personally see to it that you don't get an interview with the Ortho program here at the University of Kentucky... just down the road. I'd rather not have you anywhere near my patients.

 

[Seaglass]

Hey, if it bothers you just forward this thread to PCSOM. There's still time for them to rescind his acceptance.

http://www.pcsom.edu/

 

[HamOnWholeWheat]

It just occurred to me that even if you win an argument on-line, you still lose. Just picture CJMPre-Med sitting at his computer, thrusting his fists in the air triumphantly, while explaining to his otherwise empty dorm-room why he is able to speak so eloquently and use big words "in his head".

Nobody wins this game.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

It just occurred to me that even if you win an argument on-line, you still lose. Just picture CJMPre-Med sitting at his computer, thrusting his fists in the air triumphantly, while explaining to his otherwise empty dorm-room why he is able to speak so eloquently and use big words "in his head".

Nobody wins this game.

Not quite, but thanks for playing.

I didn't realize that articulacy was grounds for derision. If he would have responded and answered the questions posed, I would have been more than happy to elucidate my stance (much to your would-be amusement, I'm sure ) ; as it stands, however, he was just baselessly mouthing off. What would you propose I do when somebody engages in that sort of conduct? Ignore it? Tuck tail and run away? No-- people deserve to be held accountable for their words, within reason.

Why do you even post on a forum if you aren't accepting of the exchange of ideas and discourse in general? Why do you single me out here? Because I use a couple of big words here and there? Yeah- real sound criterion, that.


And if you knew me in real life, I'm sure it would pain you to see that I am quite far from the reclusive, socially inadequate nerd you portray me as. But I'm not in the habit of bragging, so I'll end it there. Dealing in stereotypes and preconceptions must be fun for you, though.

 

[Willard]

Every state that has instituted the $250K cap has seen malpractice premiums fall.

No. California, Colorado, Kansas, and Utah have all instituted $250k caps on noneconomic damages, but their premiums have gone up too (in fact, they've gone up a little faster on average than in other states).

http://www.weissratings.com/malpractice.asp

Willard

 

[trapper john]

Here's what the AMA president had to say about the "Weiss" study.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3289-8023.html

There is a lot of fallacy in the Weiss report. I talked to a surgeon friend of mine who moved his practice from Kansas City, MO across the border into the state of Kansas: Malpractice insurance for a general surgeon in KCMO is $67K. In Kansas the state with a 250K cap on non economic damages, its $34K.

 

[Willard]

Sez the president of the AMA regarding the Weiss Report, in toto:

"The Weiss study cited in your report, dismissing the efficacy of caps, is severely flawed."

Uh, OK.

Willard

 

[doctalaughs]

Sez the president of the AMA regarding the Weiss Report, in toto:

"The Weiss study cited in your report, dismissing the efficacy of caps, is severely flawed."

Uh, OK.

Willard

I too would like to know specifically how it is flawed, not anecdotally like mentioned by the previous poster. Looking at the link you posted to the study, I have an idea why it is flawed:

- They list most statistics as median payments not mean. If you have a few incredibly high payments that will not really affect the median payout much but may significantly affect the mean. I mean, if a state without caps pays out a 20 million dollar claim that may not change the median payout at all but it may rise the mean payout significantly.

- They claim the median (again median) premiums are lower in states without caps. But they fail to break it down by specialty. Are high risk specialities (where the crisis is the worst) paying $100,000 dollars on average in florida but 30,000 in colorado? That could be the case and they could still have a lower median premium because states with the caps are DISTRIBUTING preimums better.

In the end I'm just speculating and would like to see a point by point analysis of the flaws in the report. However, the median numbers are highly suspicious and may be jsut ironically fuzzy math.

 

[trapper john]

All you have to do to know the real truth is to compare the rates of the various states. I called my friend up and he is gonna fax me the Kansas vs MO comparision for various specialties.

If you guys are naive enough to not believe that there is a malpractice crisis in this country in all but a few states, well you're in for a real shock when you go out and get insurance.

If you don't believe it, just call up a few malpractice insurance carriers and compare the rates yourself.

 

[dry dre]

All you have to do to know the real truth is to compare the rates of the various states. I called my friend up and he is gonna fax me the Kansas vs MO comparision for various specialties.

I'd be interested to know what the physician fees are for a random set of given procedures on both sides of the river. I bet that the the side with lower malpractice costs charges the same.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

I'd be interested to know what the physician fees are for a random set of given procedures on both sides of the river. I bet that the the side with lower malpractice costs charges the same.

And do you propose that there's anything wrong with that if they did? Physicians are trying to get out from under their onerous malpractice premiums-- they have no obligation to "pass the cost savings on to the consumer", because those exorbitant premiums should never have existed in the first place. If they did so, that would just nullify their gains.

 

[Willard]

I think you are right, Doctalaughs. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of premiums by specialty. Also, the Weiss report analyzes changes from 1991 to 2001, which might be too long of a time frame to pick up effects of enacting caps at the end of the 90's, say.

What irritates me about this debate is that both sides resort to anecdotes to prove their case. Yes, Mr. X deserves more than $250K if a doctor amputates the wrong limb, and yes, it's not right that Trial Lawyer Y is getting $12 mil from a $20 mil settlement. What's lost is the question of whether high malpractice awards contribute to high premiums. By "common sense" it seems like they should, but there doesn't seem to be very much evidence for it. And so proponents of caps are reduced to saying "high awards" and "high premiums" in the same sentence as much as possible (kind of like "Saddam Hussein" and "9/11" and "al Qaeda")

Willard

 

[Astroman]

That is exactly what I was suggesting much earlier. Insurance companies do not make profits on premiums. They make money by INVESTING our premiums (I hope this was already obvious to everyone). Much of the reason insurance companies are raising premiums is to make up for poor decisions they've made in the market... but of course they would rather blame it on someone else (kinda like the Bush administration does)... the evil trial lawyer. Nevermind the plaintiffs that bring the lawsuit to the attorneys in the FIRST place, the judges that allow some of these cases to go to trial, the physicians that testify AGAINST other physicians, or the juries that award the settlements. Nah, it doesn't have anything to do with them.

Again, all I'm saying is that there is indeed a huge problem. A huge problem with a lot of players in the game.

 

[phllystyl]

Oh. You mean the kind of morals that supports a couple of queers getting married. The kind of morals that supports murder, which is exactly what abortion is. The kind of morals that want to take any reference to God out of everything.

I read this section of SDN to see posts like this. they help to remind me of just how bigotted my colleagues can still be.

 

[skb21]

I read this section of SDN to see posts like this. they help to remind me of just how bigotted my colleagues can still be.

It's not bigotry. I just hold the sanctity of marriage in high regard. Marriage was intended to be between a male and a female. I applaud Bush for pushing the amendment that will ban gay marriages. Too bad there are too many panty waist liberals in congress who won't let this pass.

 

[dry dre]

And do you propose that there's anything wrong with that if they did? Physicians are trying to get out from under their onerous malpractice premiums-- they have no obligation to "pass the cost savings on to the consumer", because those exorbitant premiums should never have existed in the first place. If they did so, that would just nullify their gains.

As a doctor you already get better percent raise every year than the average American. You really expect the average American will want to change the law in order to give you an extra 5-40% salary per year, limit their ability to sue you for malpractice, and pay the same price to come to see you? Silly.

I propose that patients are less likely to care (or otherwise have sympathy) about onerous malpractice premiums if the patients don't perceive to get anything from reform. For that matter, patients can view reform as a loss in that they may be limited in what they can receive for a malpractice claim. If you bank the difference, patients can see reform as a gain for you.

A standard lawyer mainstay argument in the malpractice reform debate is that "doctors, who make lots of mistakes, only want to limit malpractice premiums so that they can keep more money." Prove the lawyers right and earn public distrust.

The health care system in the US is not a true market. The seller (physician) tells the consumer (patient) what he needs to buy, when he needs to buy it, and has a large roll in determining the cost (one small part of which is malpractice reform). Given that we are in a system with limited resources to deliver health care (in a country with tens of millions of people without a physician), I don't think that limiting insurance premiums and banking the difference is an ethical thing to do.

 

[FliteSurgn]

Insurance companies do not make profits on premiums. They make money by INVESTING our premiums (I hope this was already obvious to everyone). Much of the reason insurance companies are raising premiums is to make up for poor decisions they've made in the market... but of course they would rather blame it on someone else (kinda like the Bush administration does)... the evil trial lawyer.

The insurance companies do not make that much money on their investments. They can't afford the risk involved with high-yield investment options. The insurance companies only make about 5% on their investments and this has not changed during the entire malpractice crisis.

It's clear that the naysayers have have done their job in convincing you that the blame lies with the insurance company's bad investments. This is one of the ATLA's favorite theories, but it just isn't true. It's JUNK math, just like the JUNK science that they often use to dazzle those juries. The lawyers just love the smoke and mirrors method of "proving" their argument. It's too bad that even some medical professionals can't see through their self-serving bullcrap.

 

[ortho2003]

As a doctor you already get better percent raise every year than the average American. You really expect the average American will want to change the law in order to give you an extra 5-40% salary per year, limit their ability to sue you for malpractice, and pay the same price to come to see you? Silly.

I propose that patients are less likely to care (or otherwise have sympathy) about onerous malpractice premiums if the patients don't perceive to get anything from reform. For that matter, patients can view reform as a loss in that they may be limited in what they can receive for a malpractice claim. If you bank the difference, patients can see reform as a gain for you.

A standard lawyer mainstay argument in the malpractice reform debate is that "doctors, who make lots of mistakes, only want to limit malpractice premiums so that they can keep more money." Prove the lawyers right and earn public distrust.

The health care system in the US is not a true market. The seller (physician) tells the consumer (patient) what he needs to buy, when he needs to buy it, and has a large roll in determining the cost (one small part of which is malpractice reform). Given that we are in a system with limited resources to deliver health care (in a country with tens of millions of people without a physician), I don't think that limiting insurance premiums and banking the difference is an ethical thing to do.

Physicians are the only profession in the country that take a pay cut year after year. They do not take a cut in overall salary, but they take a cut in reimbursment for many procedures, which requires more hours and more cases for the same pay. That doesn't sound like an increase in salary to me.

 

[FliteSurgn]

I'd be interested to know what the physician fees are for a random set of given procedures on both sides of the river. I bet that the the side with lower malpractice costs charges the same.

Who cares what the physician fees are? That's not what they get paid. They get whatever kind of reimbursement they're contractually obligated to take. So the doctor paying less in malpractice isn't profiting from his good fortune, he's just not being crapped on as much as the one paying more. The doctor paying more can raise charges all he wants, but it won't effect his malpractice rates and it really won't effect what he gets paid.

 

[FliteSurgn]

Physicians are the only profession in the country that take a pay cut year after year. They do not take a cut in overall salary, but they take a cut in reimbursment for many procedures, which requires more hours and more cases for the same pay. That doesn't sound like an increase in salary to me.

Exactly right! Physicians have always been stupid businessmen. That must change if we are ever going to make changes and take some control of the way things work within our profession.

 

[dry dre]

Physicians are the only profession in the country that take a pay cut year after year. They do not take a cut in overall salary, but they take a cut in reimbursment for many procedures, which requires more hours and more cases for the same pay. That doesn't sound like an increase in salary to me.

Interesting...a pay cut that isn't a pay cut, but in fact is a raise. I respect your position on reimbursment, but using lawyer talk should be left to pre-meds who fell into law school.

Average Ortho salaries (from Merrit Hawkins)

2000 $257,000
2001 $287,000
2002 $295,000
2003 $315,000

Lay it out: Were orthopods working more hours per week in 2003 than 2000? If not, they must have been doing more procedures in the same amount of reported time. Increase in productivity maybe? How is this different than everyone else in the current economy?

 

[dry dre]

Exactly right! Physicians have always been stupid businessmen. That must change if we are ever going to make changes and take some control of the way things work within our profession.

Like which things?

 

[Buster Douglas]

At last PreMed, we agree. Keith Box, PCSOM 2008, is a really sad person. I don't think I've ever come across someone so viciously homophobic.

And Keith, I think you meant you could NOT care less about those people. If you COULD care less, you obviously must care at least a little... which you so disturbingly do not (pretty condescending eh, PreMed?)...

Keith Box's ad when he finishes school (if they let him):
Keith Box, D.O. is now accepting heterosexual, conservative, white, rich, Republican, pro-life patients in his new practice in Smalltown, Mississippi. I could care less about the rest of ya.

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions of skb21 (aka "Keith Box" "PCSOM Class of 2008") do not necessarily state or reflect those of PCSOM, osteopathic medicine, American healthcare, or any reasonably considerate individual on this planet. The preceeding bodies do not endorse such boorish remarks towards persons of differing race, gender, and creed, and therefore should not be associated in any way with the personage of skb21.

 

[trapper john]

Sorry guys, had a night shift in the ICU, YUCK!

Got this today from my buddy in MO.


Kansas Missouri

FP/OB $14,288 $35,937

Gen Surg $33,454 $63,748

OB/Gyn $51,835 $93,625


That's the difference between a state (Kansas) that has a $250K cap on non-economic damages and one (MO) that doesn't. And while malpractice rates have risen in Kansas in the last five years, FP/OB's are still paying less than 15 years ago.


Just for my info, you guys on here complaining how we as physicians should be "satisfied" with what we make: How many of you are practicing physicians, or have even sweated through two to three years of residency????

 

[FliteSurgn]

Like which things?

Are you serious? If you think that doctors are in charge of much these days, you have some serious lack of awareness. A few areas where others have pigeon-holed physicians into their current situation...

Medicare reimbursement rates suck and are totally unfair in their geographic variability. Some of the states with the highest quality of care are those that receive the absolute lowest amount of Medicare dollars per patient. Are doctors demanding that reimbursement be tied any kind of quality measurement? Some are...the ones that are getting paid the least. Why do you think that they're already getting the least? Because they don't hold any power. Once you let someone take something away from you, it's much harder to make them give it back.

The amount that doctors are willing to accept from health insurance companies or HMOs has gone nowhere but down. Who holds the power in these negotiations? If a doctor holds out for more money/higher reimbursements, the company just takes their business to the the guy down the road that's willing to take less. So the insured patients get their choice of the lowest bidders. Do you think that the best doctors are those that are willing to accept the lowest reimbursements? Usually not.

Defensive medicine has driven up healthcare costs everywhere. Doctors have been forced to order tests, x-rays, and scans to rule-out unlikely diagnoses simply because of the malpractice climate. If a patient has a bad, but not unexpected, outcome and there is a test that you didn't order...then you may be left out to dry. Does it matter if the test wouldn't have changed the outcome or the prognosis? Nope. You get the shaft. So costs skyrocket because doctors are scared into ordering the "million-dollar workup" on everyone.

There are a lot of frivilous lawsuits that rely on the testimony of "professional" expert witnesses. These physicians are hired guns that will spin things towards whoever is footing the bill. What can you do if a fellow physician, very convincingly, persuades the jury against you despite no breach in the standard of care? Absolutely nothing, usually. Expert witness testimony has been beyond reproach. Only recently has some state medical boards and specialty societies begun to treat expert testimony as the practice of medicine, therefore making it peer reviewable. Guess who is adamantly opposed to the inclusion of expert testimony as the practice of medicine? The American Trial Lawyers Association likes their JUNK science, JUNK witnesses, and smokescreens. They don't want anyone messing with that gravy train. If those witnesses could actually be held accountable for their testimony, would a lot of these suits go away? Probably. Are doctors uniting and stammering for the inclusion of testimony as part of medical practice? Nope, they're too busy practicing defensive medicine.

Most doctors are working harder, longer hours, and doing more procedures than their predecessors, but they make much less per hour or procedure. Yes, physicians make more than a lot of other professions, but when you figure in the stress, long hours, and years of training...why shouldn't we?

 

[dry dre]

If a doctor holds out for more money/higher reimbursements, the company just takes their business to the the guy down the road that's willing to take less.

Capitalism 101. So are you suggesting communism or fixing the market?

Do you think that the best doctors are those that are willing to accept the lowest reimbursements?

I see no consistent relationship between "quality" of doc and willingness to accept insurance plan X.

Some of the states with the highest quality of care are those that receive the absolute lowest amount of Medicare dollars per patient.

You just un-made the point you made above.

Defensive medicine has driven up healthcare costs everywhere. Doctors have been forced to order tests, x-rays, and scans to rule-out unlikely diagnoses simply because of the malpractice climate. If a patient has a bad, but not unexpected, outcome and there is a test that you didn't order...then you may be left out to dry. Does it matter if the test wouldn't have changed the outcome or the prognosis? Nope. You get the shaft. So costs skyrocket because doctors are scared into ordering the "million-dollar workup" on everyone.

There are a lot of frivilous lawsuits that rely on the testimony of "professional" expert witnesses. These physicians are hired guns that will spin things towards whoever is footing the bill. What can you do if a fellow physician, very convincingly, persuades the jury against you despite no breach in the standard of care? Absolutely nothing, usually. Expert witness testimony has been beyond reproach. Only recently has some state medical boards and specialty societies begun to treat expert testimony as the practice of medicine, therefore making it peer reviewable. Guess who is adamantly opposed to the inclusion of expert testimony as the practice of medicine? The American Trial Lawyers Association likes their JUNK science, JUNK witnesses, and smokescreens. They don't want anyone messing with that gravy train. If those witnesses could actually be held accountable for their testimony, would a lot of these suits go away? Probably. Are doctors uniting and stammering for the inclusion of testimony as part of medical practice? Nope, they're too busy practicing defensive medicine.

I agree.

Most doctors are working harder, longer hours, and doing more procedures than their predecessors

Same goes for everyone else in America.

Yes, physicians make more than a lot of other professions, but when you figure in the stress, long hours, and years of training...why shouldn't we?

Ahh...finally the entitlement argument appears. I had a job making less than 17k a year working 80+ hours a week for 5 years. The work had a lot of stress, long hours, required carrying a gun, had tremendous occupational hazards, but the training was only six months. You can guess about the line of work. Lots of Americans work 50-60 hours a week and make a small fraction of a physicians salary. No one put a gun to my head to go into medicine, so I'm not going to now start saying that I deserve to be specially rewarded for something I volunteered for.

 

[Seaglass]

You know Kieth really is listed as a PCSOM class of '08 member? Imagine that! Link

 

[skb21]

No one may have put a gun to your head to go into medicine, but not every Joe Blow on the corner can do so.

Medicine is a calling, not a career choice. The only job that is more difficult to break into than medicine is professional sports as an athlete.

 

[Astroman]

It's not bigotry. I just hold the sanctity of marriage in high regard. Marriage was intended to be between a male and a female.

It's not? Webster's definition of a bigot: One who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.

Sounds dead on.

 

[skb21]

You know Kieth really is listed as a PCSOM class of '08 member? Imagine that! Link

Yeah. Imagine that. I guess my lack of fear to express my opinion makes me an dingus.

 

[Astroman]

I'd say it makes you much more than an dingus.

 

[skb21]

You can say what you want. I really don't give a crap about what you think.

My beliefs are based upon purely Christian beliefs.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

One of the best passages in the Bible that speaks out against homosexuality.

 

[skb21]

Oh! Another great one:

Leviticus 18:22-23

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

God destroyed Sodom due to the homosexual acts that pervaded that city. I guess that makes God a bigot. That is all in Genesis 19.

 

[FliteSurgn]

Capitalism 101. So are you suggesting communism or fixing the market?

No, I'm suggesting that doctors make a unified front against further erosion into the reimbursement rates.

I see no consistent relationship between "quality" of doc and willingness to accept insurance plan X.

Really? Then I'm sure that you'll be willing to provide your exemplary care for the bottom dollar. Do you know how hard it is to recruit physicians into those low reimbursement states? Does Capitalism 101 teach that the provider of a service should seek out the lowest price they can get for their services? Or is it the exact opposite?

You just un-made the point you made above.

No, I didn't. The inverse relationship between quality of care and reimbursement regarding Medicare, is nonsustainable. Eventually those markets that don't get as much will either stop treating Medicare patients or they will have to hire inferior providers. Which would you prefer?

I agree.

At least we agree on something.

Same goes for everyone else in America.

I'm not so sure about that, but I do believe that we as a society do not adequately compensate some professions. We pay primadona athletes, that play games for a living, a royal sum while teachers, cops, and the military do a lot more for our civilization without much pay.

Ahh...finally the entitlement argument appears. I had a job making less than 17k a year working 80+ hours a week for 5 years. The work had a lot of stress, long hours, required carrying a gun, had tremendous occupational hazards, but the training was only six months. You can guess about the line of work. Lots of Americans work 50-60 hours a week and make a small fraction of a physicians salary.

That's less that $4/hr for those 5 years. I thought the minimum wage was more than that. And I didn't even factor in that you were putting in 40 hours of overtime each week. Maybe you were military? Me too. I spent 5 years enlisted in the Army before accepting an Air Force scholarship to medical school...more than 10 years ago.

No one put a gun to my head to go into medicine, so I'm not going to now start saying that I deserve to be specially rewarded for something I volunteered for.

I'd like to think that my expertise is worth something. You don't want to specially rewarded for your decision to undergo years of extra training? Sounds like you're the one that is promoting communism.

 

[Catfish John]

Oh! Another great one:

Leviticus 18:22-23

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

God destroyed Sodom due to the homosexual acts that pervaded that city. I guess that makes God a bigot. That is all in Genesis 19.

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuals in his 33 years on earth?

Just wondering because you are a CHRISTian. Or are you a Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson Christian more than a Jesus Christian?

FYI: God did not write the Bible, men did.

 

[skb21]

God did write the Bible, through those men.

 

[Willard]

Leviticus 11:10-12 reads:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of
all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an
abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have
their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the
waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

So - had any shrimp lately, abominator?

 

[Astroman]

God did write the Bible, through those men.

Oh my Lord, HAVE MERCY!!!!! Again, are you SERIOUS??? It's just one ridiculous thing after another with you, Keith Box PCSOM Class of 2008.

Abominator... Good one, Willard.

 

[Astroman]

Oh! Another great one:

Leviticus 19:19 : Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Hope you never wear any mixed fiber shirts or pants. Abomination!!!

Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits Adultery: both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.

Get to work, Keith Box PCSOM Class of 2008. There are plenty of 'em out there.

 

[trapper john]

I am so sick of this garbage! Look, this thread was about a very serious subject to those in or entering medical practice. It's affecting my choice of where to go, and as I have pointed out, it's costing people their health and even their lives. The last frickin thing I expected was religous fanaticism and biblical discussions to enter the fray.

Keith, since you started this crap, here's a little wisdom from someone with a hell of lot more life experience than you have. You are going to meet patients in medicine whose guts you absoutely cannot stand. Forget the homosexual aspect;First there's drug seeking parasites, there are non compliant self destructive idiots who bleed an already overwhelmed system dry, and just for fun, criminals chained to the bed in the ED shouting obscenities at everyone in sight. You know what they have in common in with your church going, bible believing friends? THEY DESERVE EXACTLY THE SAME TREATMENT FROM YOU! Whatever your personal beliefs are, you have to leave them outside the patients room. If you can't and it affects your judgement, then don't go into medicine. Become a preacher or a politician.


Let me tell you, it's not easy at times to remember this. A few months ago I went into the pre-op clinic to start lines on a man who was in for a pneumonectomy. He already had a previous lobectomy for lung CA, and as I started looking for IV access, I smelled cigarette smoke. "Sir", I asked, "are you still smoking"? "Yes", he replied, " I had two just before I came in. Figured I might as well while I still had two lungs"!!!!!

 

[skb21]

I am so sick of this garbage! Look, this thread was about a very serious subject to those in or entering medical practice. It's affecting my choice of where to go, and as I have pointed out, it's costing people their health and even their lives. The last frickin thing I expected was religous fanaticism and biblical discussions to enter the fray.

Keith, since you started this crap, here's a little wisdom from someone with a hell of lot more life experience than you have. You are going to meet patients in medicine whose guts you absoutely cannot stand. Forget the homosexual aspect;First there's drug seeking parasites, there are non compliant self destructive idiots who bleed an already overwhelmed system dry, and just for fun, criminals chained to the bed in the ED shouting obscenities at everyone in sight. You know what they have in common in with your church going, bible believing friends? THEY DESERVE EXACTLY THE SAME TREATMENT FROM YOU! Whatever your personal beliefs are, you have to leave them outside the patients room. If you can't and it affects your judgement, then don't go into medicine. Become a preacher or a politician.


Let me tell you, it's not easy at times to remember this. A few months ago I went into the pre-op clinic to start lines on a man who was in for a pneumonectomy. He already had a previous lobectomy for lung CA, and as I started looking for IV access, I smelled cigarette smoke. "Sir", I asked, "are you still smoking"? "Yes", he replied, " I had two just before I came in. Figured I might as well while I still had two lungs"!!!!!

OK. Now, go find where I stated that my views on this will affect the way I treat them. The only time I have ever stated that the way I treat them would be effected is when I see the ones that abuse the welfare and medicaid system. It won't affect my actual treatment of them, because I will do my job to the best of my abilities. The abusers are the patients I will have limited tolerance for though. If they miss a pre-op, they will be banned from the clinic. Things like that.

 

[trapper john]

I'll be sure to tell him the reason he is in his situation if I ever have to "care" for him. I should use treat instead of care, because I could care less about a f*ggot.

With that kind of an attitude, you can see why I seriously question whether you truly will treat homosexuals the same way you would treat one of your fellow parishoners.

What's that line in the bible about "hating the sin". but "loving the sinner"?