kbordson

This year is 69.... you would think that this would be the "better" party.

do you get that for every handjob!? If you do it right. (why do people always talk about pearl necklaces and blow jobs.... if you do THAT right, there shouldn't be any left )

oh... so you're not going to make it to Sturgis then. Well... Disregard the comment in the other thread then.

AND... he can ride it to Sturgis!!! The rally's comin up soon. It's just a short drive for you... but then there's the lil bit of water.

Darius, There is A LOT more to this entire situation than I think that you are aware of. I have previously posted about how the primary focus of my practice is medicaid. I enjoyed helping that population. I wanted to help those that truly needed the help the most... Three years of private practice later... I'm told that my group is not yet considering me for partner because I'm not yet "meeting overhead" because of my choices on patient selection and how I have a lower "production" (as calculated by COLLECTIONS). NOTE: I'm double and triple booked. I'm quite busy. At my north office, I routinely have 30+ patients scheduled a day. BUT... I try to take the time to educate my patients, not just throw the speculum in and dash to the next. To meet the overhead with medicaid patients - it's a QUANTITY issue, not quality. It's very frustrating. Because of that - I resigned from this practice and will be joining a group that does NOT take Medicaid. Not because I don't want to help the sick. In fact... it's just the REVERSE. I want to HELP - and by HELP, I mean the educational and emotional needs of patients as well. Now... I'm not asking for an hour per patient like psychiatry seems to get, but I feel that if it's a scared 16year old that has never had a pap and was recently raped and is now pregnant... she deserves more than a double booked 15min spot for her initial ob appointment. With the government controls... with the monies from the governement.... I can't do that and "meet overhead." Is is that the overhead of the group is too high? Quite possibly, but until I become a partner, I have no say in the changes. pm me if you truly don't understand or if you have further questions. - and for the record, I am NOT doing this career for the money.... in a week, I am PAYING out of pocket to go to Peru and do this for free.

Nope. In case you can't access the link, it's a weight that you would grasp with both hands. Holding gently, but firmly. Then quickly sliding your hands forward and back on the shaft of the weight (which seems to have a thin sleeves between the weights to allow slight movement between them) will give your upper arms a workout that you *cough* couldn't get any other way. (and... I wonder if it comes with a free gift of a pearl necklace. )

Unfortunately, my experience with the VA has been more in line with what Ron is saying. While I was a medical student, I did rotations at the VA in Leavenworth. I was saddened by some of the lack of respect that the prior service men and women received. Many of the residents and students took a rather dismissive attitude toward their patients. The attendings seemed to show a bit more compassion, but I was personally insulted by their lack of ability to control some of the comments of those underneath them. It was one of the more challenging rotations. Randy, I'm REALLY glad that you are getting GREAT care and feel confident with the system.

Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field. Unless you're suggesting that teaching is somehow a "lower" career (?), it doesn't. I don't think that. And just to be explicit: it also doesn't discredit the women who have chosen that field because they really want to be teach. I wasn't in any way stating it was a "lower" career. I was just wondering if your theory did a disservice to the males in the career by saying now that the "best and brightest women" are gone that the quality has declined. Not that your theory might not have merit... but just wondering about the implications of that statement. As I explicitly noted, it's a hypothesis not a theory. There's everything right with asking the question of how does that hypothesis account for the role of male teachers. (And the role of the "best and brightest" women who elect to pursue teaching too.) You made/implied the assumption about "discrediting" one group or another. Marg Obviously my question with respect to your hypothesis has offended. We are not communicating well. I'm done discussing this topic with you.

Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field. Unless you're suggesting that teaching is somehow a "lower" career (?), it doesn't. I don't think that. And just to be explicit: it also doesn't discredit the women who have chosen that field because they really want to be teach. I wasn't in any way stating it was a "lower" career. I was just wondering if your theory did a disservice to the males in the career by saying now that the "best and brightest women" are gone that the quality has declined. Not that your theory might not have merit... but just wondering about the implications of that statement. Which would suggest that one likely already had men who chose teaching as a profession out of a wider pool of possible opportunities rather than a narrower range of choices. What has been observed is a among the already low numbers of male teachers is a decreasing number of men entering teaching: "The number of male teachers in the United States is at a 40-year low. Out of the 3 million teachers in the United States, only one-quarter are men, according the National Education Association." /Marg And this would imply that not only have women left the field, but both sexes have chosen other careers. In that case, it would be very challenging to determine whether the loss of the females or the males were the significant variable in the decline.

Have you done any comparisons to the US? US doctors need 4 years in Uni, 4 years in medical school, and 4 (or more) years in the hospital. That's 12 years of training (compared with 7 in the UK). In the US, the closest equivalent to the UK "doctor" is a Nurse Practitioner (4 years of Uni plus a Master's degree taking 1 or 2 years). No offense but you're talking out of your arse. In the UK its 6 years just to pass the MBBS/BSc/MBChB. Then you have to get on to a foundation course for 2 more years. Following that there is specialist training which is typically another 5 years but depending on speciality can be upto 10years if a PhD is required (Neuro for example). Nurse practitioners are exactly that and whilst they maybe good in their role they are Nurses and not Doctors. To start working in a UK hospital a Dr has therefore had two years more medical training than their US counterpart.

Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field. I do agree that there was an artificial trend for females to become teachers and with that release, there have been less of the "best and brightest" females in that role, but there has been no such bias for males in that field.

not that I blame the CEO's (cuz not too many people will say "oh no... you're paying me way too much") But... I question if the government would sign those contracts giving those CEO's that annual salary. I've stated it before. I do NOT trust the government. Too many lobbyists.

Would you advocate a "Strike" if the government was demanding you work as they want you to? I don't know that "strike" is the right term... cuz I would still try to take care of the ladies that I felt responsible for, but I would adjust my practice (and am even currently making plans to adjust the level of government control)

I bet their OB/Gyn's are quite busy (or would that be bzzzzzzzzzz-y)

Depending on state, the malpractice can vary from 16k/yr to 277k/yr source And HOW you're compensated varies - it can be by direct salary or by a percentage of billing or collections (where you are penalized for lesser paying insurances - read MEDICAID) or by RVU (which are the most fair... but not too many pay by that standard)

Just to point out - residents don't make "cushy" pay. 30k for 80 hour work weeks (that would be two separate minimum wage jobs) Yes, once residency is over and then making physician pay, the amount is more. But, honestly, my husband makes QUITE A BIT more than I do... and he doesn't even have a college degree.

Well... that wouldn't be a Harley then. Maybe a Guzzi. (j/k Squeak... Gina is very nice and definitely NOT chav'y)

On that tangent, I've always wondered about the quality of delicate health care decisions made by or procedures done by hospital residents while in a state of sleep-deprived, over-worked exhaustion. Lots of other professions (pilots, truck drivers, etc.) have mandatory rest requirements for safety's sake, obviously for good reason. I'd love to hear some physicians' input on this. I feel that I have a VERY fair right to comment on this. My intern year was prior to the federal work hour restriction. The remaining 3 years were with the 80 hour (averaged) work week restriction. And NOW... they are even moving it to a 60hour limit. LOTS OF DEBATE in the medical field about experience and exposure v. abuse. Personally... on some of those 36+ hour days... I felt dangerous even driving home. But I got "credit" for observing additional surgeries or procedures (as an intern, I really didn't DO all that much... especially during day time hours... the senior residents actually DID most of the procedure, I just did the paperwork and the "scut monkey" stuffs) But... even though I could document that I was present, I really don't know how much I was truly learning or retaining when my main focus was on the HORRID headache and the racing heart (caffeine). I think that there should be some limitation in hours... but let me also add that once out of residency, there are NO FEDERAL RESTRICTION ON WORK LOAD. And... to mandate it would drive even more physicians out of practice. If someone is a solo practioner, he/she is on call 24/7. And depending on the patient load, that can be full clinic in the day, interrupted by procedures/ER calls/ deliveries (if OB or Family Practice), phone calls all night and start over again in the morning. Even in a group practice (like I currently am in), you don't walk out at 5pm. You still have some patients in the hospital that you feel responsible for, so although you could "turn them over" to the on call doc, you feel like you know what's going on better so you tell the nurses - "page me." And the patients appreciate that too. They want one familiar face... and they tend to forget that you have 30 other patients in clinic and how many other calls from the ER REAL LIFE practice is hard. Residency was hard too... don't get me wrong. But at least then you had a senior resident or an attending watching over your shoulder.... But in REAL LIFE.... it does take LOTS of hours (and yes... I understand that here I type on dz.com at 4pm - but currently Mondays are my "day off", really more of an administration day, charting, signing off labs and doing hospital things... and since I was on call this past weekend... dz.com is a nice way to relax)

hey... at least I didn't say "chav'd" But... can a bike be a chav?

Then she started becoming resistant to the drugs? I was thinking - "then the baby popped out and she wanted NOTHING to do with that again."

chuffed? Is that like chafed? Your bike will be chafed by turtle? And you're allowing him to "care" for her like that?! Poor Harley. -It's like we both speak English, but not.

I was just gonna type that.

I don't think that he's a "crook" - He signed a contract with the company that he works for. If they didn't want to hire him for that, if he's not "worth" that to the company, then they should NOT have given that contract. If the company has chosen to employ his (or her) services at $X and he takes home $X, that does NOT make him a "crook." Now... whether you, or I, feel that he deserves that paycheck is irrelevant to their business contract.

You know a lot of doctors? I do, and whenever they gather socially, quitting medicine is one of the top conversational topics. Being a doctor is a miserable lifestyle. Do you work 11 or 12 hours a day? Plus work weekends a couple times a month? Get woken up by calls from work at 3am a couple times a week? Ever been stuck in town for 6 months because you can't find call coverage? Worked an 18 hour shift, driven 4 hours to a friends wedding, driven back and started another 18 hour shift, at the end of which you have to be on top of your game, or risk getting sued for a million bucks? The only reason people aren't bailing out right and left is that they had to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, and spend 12 years of their life, getting to this (miserable) point. And now they're locked in because they need to make enough money to pay off the loans. You forgot to mention tail malpractice coverage. But... being able to truly help someone that NEEDED that help. That's why MANY of us do it. Despite the hours, despite the call, despite the risk of lawsuit - which could take away EVERYTHING for sometimes not even a breach of standard of care, despite the demands that we obviously "deserve" to give more back to society, despite the entitled cries of "YOU NEED TO TAKE CARE OF ME!!!". . . . Helping that one person is WHY we do it. Now... if you add FURTHER government regulation and documentation and control.... Where is the tipping point? How much personal risk and sacrifice are people willing to put up with before many just step out?

Poor lil Harley. Hopefully it will be a quick fix. (So.... just curious, is the HD Hospital part of the government health care too? )