3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Even if Trump was somewhat competent, and intelligent enough to hide his administration's corruption -- this would be a big problem for an incumbent president who narrowly won swing states to get elected.  

Four years of young people becoming old enough they can now vote, and 4 years of old people dying off -- COVID not even taken into account.

Yes indeed. The Republican Party will have to re-invent itself after Trump. The question, of course, is whether Trump has caused irreparable harm.

51 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

One preview into the future of "idealized" healthcare from the left is gynecological care.  Again, I'm not defending the right here, but there is some perception that the left, Obama, and the ACA figured this out.

GYN care is universal.  You could be an undocumented immigrant with no insurance, a wealthy 23 year old who chose not to buy insurance, medicaid, or someone with insurance...you have access to GYN care in one way or another.  Most OB/GYN departments in urban hospitals are primarily compensated with medicaid payments from the government.  The same progressive politicians in these regions won't entertain any tort reform.  So these departments are relying on government medicaid payments for their revenue and are paying malpractice rates of over $500,000 annually per doc.  OB/GYN departments lose 10's of millions per year, every year, and hospitals need to allocate from other departments remain whole.  University medical centers and schools actively discourage grads and resources from going in this direction.

So when you go to meet with the doc for the birth of your child/grandchild, keep in mind that you are seeing one of the least intelligent grads from their class, who barely got through their 4 years, and who now has been furnished with the least amount of resources possible to do his or her job.  The politicians and the blog lawyer say it's fine though....but at least he'll be the first one to call you when your kid is diagnosed with autism at 3 years of age so you can sue the OB/GYN.  

As offensive to me as the all claim adjusters are evil and need to be fought ads are the mill ads that ask if your child has a defect, call the lawyer as you may be entitled to compensation.  Don’t call a doctor, therapists, gene therapist, no call a lawyer.  The lawyer will refer you to a testifying doctor who will hold back his fee until you get paid not to truly treat the child but to "prove” the case.  

Not all personal injury attorneys are like that. Some are good people. They tend to talk derisively about TV or billboard lawyers.   I can’t tell you how many times I sat with plaintiffs and their attorneys where the attorney was tempering their expectations and explaining the risks. 

Most professional liability insurance policies are what we term "wasting” policies.  The limit of coverage is eaten up by the expenses, lawyer fees, expert fees etc.   The professional has a right you don’t see on standard liability policies, the right to settle is controlled by the insurer on standard policies, on professional policies, that right belongs to the professional.  Some come with penalties if the professional declines to settle.  For example, if the insurer wants to accept the demand and the professional wants to proceed to trial the insurer’s liability may be capped at what the demand they wanted to accept was.  That is why for medical malpractice, the preferred tort reform of doctors is caps.  The right to settle goes to the fact the professional is preserving their reputation.  

Afan also knows the hardest profession to sue is lawyers.   

Both the medical and legal professions police themselves, but I would argue that the doctors do a better job.

I will leave you with this quote from a lawyer I knew who defended malpractice cases.  Half the doctors out there graduated in the bottom of their class. 

1 minute ago, Desertbirds said:

Yes indeed. The Republican Party will have to re-invent itself after Trump. The question, of course, is whether Trump has caused irreparable harm.

The US is a center-right leaning country, and the electorate has too short a memory to hold the Republican Party 100% accountable for Trump.  If he loses in November the Republicans who keep their seats in the House and Senate will scurry away from Trump; they'll put more distance than Usain Bolt in the 100M sprint -- and voters will let them do it.

13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Again, this is completely false. As is you assertion about their testing. Aamc puts out data on matched vs unmatched as well as average scores by specialty. They're not at the top but they're far from the bottom. Data doesn't lie. As far as toxicity every surgical rotation deals with toxicity because those residencies are stressful environments. Personally we had WAY more issues with general surgery Ortho and worst of all Urology than OBGYN in school. And anecdotally the surgical subspecialty residents I know had WAY worse experiences than the OBs.

You have points on the liability issues but you're comically off on your other points.

That’s a different toxicity, but sure.  Surgical rotations present more problems for medical STUDENTS than OB.

The toxicity of OB is at the attending level, not residents.  Surgical rotations are a problem for the long hours and abuses residents endure.  You can debate if that is or isn’t ok, but it’s part of training/acquiring the skill set and isn’t the fault of politicians, economic, or legal policies.  You are confusing the rigors and pitfalls of training with the state of the field.

The OB issue comes from the top.  It’s being financially squeezed from both ends from Medicare and Medicaid and liability. It has nothing to do with the student or resident experience.  It’s the career experience.  
 

This is a field that used to be at or near the top.  They may not be at the bottom, but the fact that a surgical speciality that brings life into the world like that reveals the problem.  Med schools absolutely discourage it.  Maybe you’re didn’t.  But others do.

You sound like you were once a medical student or resident.  You know the "road” to success.  It ain’t the most important fields.  It’s the least regulated and least essential ones.

11 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

Yes indeed. The Republican Party will have to re-invent itself after Trump. The question, of course, is whether Trump has caused irreparable harm.

They’ll just Pivot again and Republicans will move on. How many Republicans were against trump, calling him a moron and unfit for office? Then he won. 

Republicans have shown they’re party first. Just think that just a few years ago Mitt Romney seemed like the worst thing that could happen to the country, and now he’s looking like the voice of reason on the right. 

15 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The US is a center-right leaning country, and the electorate has too short a memory to hold the Republican Party 100% accountable for Trump.  If he loses in November the Republicans who keep their seats in the House and Senate will scurry away from Trump; they'll put more distance than Usain Bolt in the 100M sprint -- and voters will let them do it.

It WAS a center/right leaning country, but demographics, combined with resentment at increased inequality, is changing that dynamic.

There is no Republican party, at least the one that existed before the Coup by Gingrich et al, it's now a hard right obstructionist party that depends on appeals to racism and evangelical issues to hold the working and middle classes, and no party can win by appealing only to the top 5% on economic issues.

Traditionally, the Republican party was conservative, the "Daddy" party that pushed good government and fiscal responsibility, and was moderate on social issues. While it supported the wealthy, it also held to the concept of "noblesse oblige." This started to break down in the Reagan years, when "greed became good."  The southern strategy of Nixon and Pat Buchanan was doubled down by Gingrich and DeLay. Congressional comity and bipartisanship was replaced by never ending warfare, well before GOT.

Now it's a reactionary party that appeals to the worst angels of our nature.

This is why so many Republicans have deserted the party, those that remain have sold their soul to Trump, because they can't win a primary in most states without kowtowing to the hard core Trumpers. 35% is enough to dominate primaries, but not enough to be a viable national party going forward.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The US is a center-right leaning country, and the electorate has too short a memory to hold the Republican Party 100% accountable for Trump.  If he loses in November the Republicans who keep their seats in the House and Senate will scurry away from Trump; they'll put more distance than Usain Bolt in the 100M sprint -- and voters will let them do it.

Many in the Republican Party fought as hard to prevent Trump from getting the nomination as Democrats did to prevent him from winning the election.

Trump is an idiot and a clown.  Does the entire platform need to suffer for his sins? 
 

The party really didn’t want him to win the nomination in the first place.  I hold minimal allegiance to the Republican Party, but Trump rallied the far right.  If AOC got into the Oval Office for 4 years by rallying left wing radicals despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party, they’d be doing the same thing afterwards.  
 

And as a liberal, why would you think it’s such a bad thing that the Republican Party distances itself from Trump?  A more tolerant and moderate opposition party is a win for you.  I’d love it if the Democratic Party financially moved to the center while maintaining their liberal social stance.  
 

We’re not rooting for Eagles vs Cowboys here; I don’t care who is in office; I just want to move in the right direction.

22 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

Yes indeed. The Republican Party will have to re-invent itself after Trump. The question, of course, is whether Trump has caused irreparable harm.

I cant believe they are rolling with him again... I understand the reasoning behind nominating an incumbent as your candidate, but really?

25 minutes ago, Green Dog said:

I think it all hinges on the new scheme and how effective the passing game performs.  If we have consistency in getting chunk plays, consistency in first downs, and the offense is rated in the top 10 for an extended stretch of the season, the running game will benefit as a direct result.

Just like Jay Ajayi's first TD run in the Denver game in 2017.  We had dominated them with the pass in the 1st half, as we had all season.  They played 2 deep.  Jay broke one off.  It's one of the most basic relationships in football.

But the key is what you mentioned; if we avoid the injury bug enough that all becomes possible.

I’ll go on record that if we stay majority of the way healthy then we’re a lock for playoffs 

4 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

I cant believe they are rolling with him again... I understand the reasoning behind nominating an incumbent as your candidate, but really?

Too risky not to. 2 more seats in the Supreme Court potentially in the next 4 years. They already stole one of them, why not sell their souls for 2 more?

19 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

 

You sound like you were once a medical student or resident.  You know the "road” to success.  It ain’t the most important fields.  It’s the least regulated and least essential ones.

And herein lies the problem... If you are going into the medical field primarily for individual success, you are doing it for the wrong reason (in my opinion). I feel like you can often tell when a medical professional is not genuine in their career purpose, and it sometimes effects the quality of their work (especially in the way they build relationships with those they are helping). If personal wealth and success are a side effect of your true passion for medicine/inherent desire to help people, so be it. I fall into this trap sometimes as well because I have a competitive nature. For me, it is never about wealth or notoriety, but I sometimes have issues with others in by field doing something better than myself. This is when I step back and re frame my focus because I have temporarily lost sight on the purpose of my work, which is supporting the individuals I work with and empowering their voices. 

24 minutes ago, austinfan said:

It WAS a center/right leaning country, but demographics, combined with resentment at increased inequality, is changing that dynamic.

There is no Republican party, at least the one that existed before the Coup by Gingrich et al, it's now a hard right obstructionist party that depends on appeals to racism and evangelical issues to hold the working and middle classes, and no party can win by appealing only to the top 5% on economic issues.

Traditionally, the Republican party was conservative, the "Daddy" party that pushed good government and fiscal responsibility, and was moderate on social issues. While it supported the wealthy, it also held to the concept of "noblesse oblige." This started to break down in the Reagan years, when "greed became good."  The southern strategy of Nixon and Pat Buchanan was doubled down by Gingrich and DeLay. Congressional comity and bipartisanship was replaced by never ending warfare, well before GOT.

Now it's a reactionary party that appeals to the worst angels of our nature.

This is why so many Republicans have deserted the party, those that remain have sold their soul to Trump, because they can't win a primary in most states without kowtowing to the hard core Trumpers. 35% is enough to dominate primaries, but not enough to be a viable national party going forward.

 

 

this is almost 100% incorrect.

12 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Too risky not to. 2 more seats in the Supreme Court potentially in the next 4 years. They already stole one of them, why not sell their souls for 2 more?

very true, although i have a feeling those potentially 2 more seats will do their very best to hold out if Trump gets re-elected. If Biden gets in they will likely take a final bow. Its such a mess...

19 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

And herein lies the problem... If you are going into the medical field primarily for individual success, you are doing it for the wrong reason (in my opinion). I feel like you can often tell when a medical professional is not genuine in their career purpose, and it sometimes effects the quality of their work (especially in the way they build relationships with those they are helping). If personal wealth and success are a side effect of your true passion for medicine/inherent desire to help people, so be it. I fall into this trap sometimes as well because I have a competitive nature. For me, it is never about wealth or notoriety, but I sometimes have issues with others in by field doing something better than myself. This is when I step back and re frame my focus because I have temporarily lost sight on the purpose of my work, which is supporting the individuals I work with and empowering their voices. 

I would like my heart surgeon to make a lot of money.  
 

What you said is 100% right, but it’s also tricky to reduce a very complex and challenging field into a vocation.  Talent follows money.  Afan said himself that the premeds aren’t very bright.  😂. So perhaps we need to recruit better.

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

No they're not, there was a pre-med track that was easier than taking science courses with science majors. There was also the "non-science" track. That may have changed, I go back to the 1970s.

Now I was young and foolish, if I had a do-over I'd done the pre-med track, gone to med school, then into medical research. I just didn't understand the rules of the game and how to hustle it.

Trust me, I've dealt with plenty of doctors over the years, and most aren't that bright (neither are most corporate lawyers, for that matter). I've dealt with highly recommended surgeons who turned out to be BS artists, as well as first rate doctors.

Brilliant people are as rare as hen's teeth, I've known a few in academia, and a couple in law. When you meet one, you know it immediately.

Most successful people are good at playing the career game, but that doesn't make them brilliant or excessively competent, they just recognize the rules of the game early in life, suck up to the right mentors, paint by numbers and glide through life.

Your standards for doctors and premeds are a lot higher than they are for Eagles personnel.

1 hour ago, Green Dog said:

No doubt.

And just like pe.com, when you post tweets here sometimes the format is affected and includes parts you didn't want.  Not the boards fault, just the way Twitter is designed.

Gotta admit tho, we all benefit from the moment to moment updates.

This helps to an extent but I think it also is having a far greater negative effect.  All it takes is one retweet of false information/headline without reading the whole story to turn in to thousands of retweets and then bam, a new narrative is created.  This is where journalism has become very questionable and lazy.  They want those GOTCHA headlines and they know that 75% of twitter isn't going to read the full story.  

Trump's "very fine people" quote is a prime example of something getting so completely twisted because of a headline.  He doesn't help himself no doubt but you also can't argue how some things are taken totally out of context to push a different story.

42 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

this is almost 100% incorrect.

And your political expertise is???

12 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

This helps to an extent but I think it also is having a far greater negative effect.  All it takes is one retweet of false information/headline without reading the whole story to turn in to thousands of retweets and then bam, a new narrative is created.  This is where journalism has become very questionable and lazy.  They want those GOTCHA headlines and they know that 75% of twitter isn't going to read the full story.  

Trump's "very fine people" quote is a prime example of something getting so completely twisted because of a headline.  He doesn't help himself no doubt but you also can't argue how some things are taken totally out of context to push a different story.

But it wasn't taken out of context, Trump was deliberately signalling the hard right that he wasn't going to castigate some truly undesirables (Jews will not replace us?).

He was trying to have it both ways and was caught.

And there's no defense of the Confederacy, it's time it was finally exposed for what it really was, a rebellion to preserve the institution of slavery, pure and simple, and Confederate monuments were mostly built after the end of Reconstruction, as part of the program to institutionalize White Supremacy in the South. So no, there wasn't a moral equivalency between the two groups of protesters.

Now that doesn't mean there aren't times when cable news exaggerates things, which is why I stick to print media (not editorial pages, those are crap).

I mean all the cable networks suck, Fox is the worst (Chris Wallace is the only credible person left), but CNN and MSNBC have too little news, too much pontificating.

DraftKings Sportsbook odds boosted Poirier to win from -225 all the way up to +400

max bet is 10 dollars. Its almost a free 40 bucks.

On the same fight, they have Hooker odds boosted to win by KO, TKO, or DQ from +375 up to +410.

A small 2 dollar bet can cover the 10 you bet on Poirier if he happens to lose. 

 

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

That’s a different toxicity, but sure.  Surgical rotations present more problems for medical STUDENTS than OB.

The toxicity of OB is at the attending level, not residents.  Surgical rotations are a problem for the long hours and abuses residents endure.  You can debate if that is or isn’t ok, but it’s part of training/acquiring the skill set and isn’t the fault of politicians, economic, or legal policies.  You are confusing the rigors and pitfalls of training with the state of the field.

The OB issue comes from the top.  It’s being financially squeezed from both ends from Medicare and Medicaid and liability. It has nothing to do with the student or resident experience.  It’s the career experience.  
 

This is a field that used to be at or near the top.  They may not be at the bottom, but the fact that a surgical speciality that brings life into the world like that reveals the problem.  Med schools absolutely discourage it.  Maybe you’re didn’t.  But others do.

You sound like you were once a medical student or resident.  You know the "road” to success.  It ain’t the most important fields.  It’s the least regulated and least essential ones.

The attending levels directly coorelate to the resident experience in most cases and I do not see the rampant toxicity that you're describing. And it's not just my school/residency experience. Between school and residency and now attending life for my wife and I we have gotten to know dozens from various and assorted programs, from Penn to small osteopathic schools and private offices, and no where have I seen this dissuading you're describing.  Surgical specialists are without a doubt more toxic from top to bottom interpersonally and financially OBGYN departments are far less squeezed than pretty much any generalist outpatient office, virtually any pediatric division and many hospitalist divisions. And that's not just my opinion, that's we'll documented from reports from plsces like Merritt Hawkings on revenue production.

They're somewhere around the 10-12th highest compensated specialty with one of the highest demands in the country. Physician satisfaction surveys they're typically smack dab in the middle. Again the data is readily available, robust and clearly does not support what you're saying. If you're looking solely to make money and work as little as possible sure maybe an advisor will steer you towards something else but by in large any training program is universally steering students away they are in the minority and doing their students a massive disservice. 

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

And your political expertise is???

The debate regarding tort reform motivated me to do some investigating. There were a number of surprising results. For example:

22 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

This helps to an extent but I think it also is having a far greater negative effect.  All it takes is one retweet of false information/headline without reading the whole story to turn in to thousands of retweets and then bam, a new narrative is created.  This is where journalism has become very questionable and lazy.  They want those GOTCHA headlines and they know that 75% of twitter isn't going to read the full story.  

Trump's "very fine people" quote is a prime example of something getting so completely twisted because of a headline.  He doesn't help himself no doubt but you also can't argue how some things are taken totally out of context to push a different story.

I was mostly talking about us here on the board, getting timely Twitter updates on the Birds.

Though I absolutely disagree with your example.  There's no twisting the message he was sending and the headlines weren't even necessary, no matter how hard the right tried to aggrandize their reactions and distract people from what happened.

37 minutes ago, austinfan said:

And your political expertise is???

Im an expert in knowing when people are wrong. 

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Im an expert in knowing when people are wrong. 

So you avoid mirrors?