10 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Take gun control. Majority of voters, both Republican and Democrat, support expanded background checks, waiting periods of three days, "red flag” laws and some voluntary buyback programs.  To a lesser margin but still a majority, in both parties, voters favor bans on bump stocks, silencers, high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Yet Republicans see this as a third rail issue. Well moderate Republicans don’t tend to agree.  

Take Medicare for All.  The progressive wing of the Democrats want it and want it yesterday.  The moderates in the party favor universal availability of healthcare but not under government control of all healthcare with strict price fixing  

I suspect moderates and independents from both parties could get behind both positions but you wouldn’t be ostracized from the party if you had a contrary position. 

Which is why I'm hoping for a Democratic landslide that will bring in numerous "fly over" state Congressmen and Governors, and weaken the hold of CA, NY and Mass on the party. If a state like Texas went Blue, it would swing the party toward the middle, add Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NC, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Florida, and you'd have a similar coalition as the New Deal without the racist South impeding progress for four decades.

The only way to rid the Republican party of the far right is a defeat so decisive that they're discredited for decades.

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Which is why I'm hoping for a Democratic landslide that will bring in numerous "fly over" state Congressmen and Governors, and weaken the hold of CA, NY and Mass on the party. If a state like Texas went Blue, it would swing the party toward the middle, add Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NC, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Florida, and you'd have a similar coalition as the New Deal without the racist South impeding progress for four decades.

The only way to rid the Republican party of the far right is a defeat so decisive that they're discredited for decades.

All day long you've done nothing but speak in  hyperbole about politics or just out there drastic dream scenarios. Death of the republican party, discredit for decades now, etc...

Its not hard to see that....you're wrong. You're just not being realistic at all. This is not political expertise. Its common sense. 

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Which is why I'm hoping for a Democratic landslide that will bring in numerous "fly over" state Congressmen and Governors, and weaken the hold of CA, NY and Mass on the party. If a state like Texas went Blue, it would swing the party toward the middle, add Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NC, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Florida, and you'd have a similar coalition as the New Deal without the racist South impeding progress for four decades.

The only way to rid the Republican party of the far right is a defeat so decisive that they're discredited for decades.

This is completely delusional.  If the Democrats get a land slide uber-filibuster proof majority, they will ram every insane leftist idea they can think of down America's throat.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

This is completely delusional.  If the Democrats get a land slide uber-filibuster proof majority, they will ram every insane leftist idea they can think of down America's throat.

And how will these proposals garner enough votes?

This isn't 40 years ago when party discipline was tight, the fly over state Congressmen know they have to run for re-election in states that won't be happy with their support of a radical left (though what is radical is a matter of opinion, I don't consider moving toward Germany's social contract very radical, neither would Bismark). So if there is a Democratic landslide, that doesn't mean the Progressives, who are a minority in the party (or Biden wouldn't be the Presidential candidate) will rule the roost.

Obama and B Clinton certainly weren't radical, they were both about as mainstream as it gets.

McConnell and Trump are radical reactionaries, they hark back to the Gilded Age (Lochner, et al).

We will see an increase in income tax rates, which isn't radical, but a swing back after two major "Supply side" tax cuts that did nothing to increase supply but greatly increased inequality. We'll see a gradual movement to universal health care, which is supported by the vast majority of Americans. We'll see movement toward addressing Climate Change, which again is supported by a super majority. Probably an investment in infrastructure which is long overdue.  None of these things are "radical."

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

I genuinely hope that the progressive Democrats and the hard core conservatives in the Republican Party cause Main Streeters and Moderate Democrats to form a Moderate Party.  I believe such a party could be dominant in four to six years because I believe that the majority of people are in the middle. 

Agreed, I believe a majority of folks are center, even just right of center on several issues.  That's the identity and space that Tony Blair and the Labor Party captured in the UK when they took control. given the state of our politics, I can only hope

 

13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Yes actually.  And Penn medicine departments are notoriously toxic. Hell their Urology department had their residents working 120 hours a week (even after the hour restrictions), copying paper charts because they didn't feel like learning a new system, and threatened firing and legal action to the whole class when someone reported them. A Penn medical department being too toxic for students absolutely does not prove your point at all. 

And again, if you don't like revenue show me profit numbers. Because you've been dramatically off on testing numbers and the idea that people are getting pushed away from the specialty so it's very very hard to take your word in something at this point. Show me cost vs revenue of your average OBGYN department and associated units (PETU nursery and NICU). Because that's not even close to what I've seen at all. 

You have friends in OB departments across the country.  I’ve sat in hospital system budget meetings in 3 major systems, all of which have had the same problems.  Personally I know one obstetrician who endorses the same problems in the Seattle area.  Small number.

You know more OB’s than I do.  I suggest you ask them.  Maybe you’ll get the same story, maybe you won’t.  Maybe they’ll be a little defensive about it and will be biased.  I don’t know.  
 

Ive managed to back out of partaking in these meetings lately, maybe things have changed, although I don’t suspect they have.  

My friend got his Covid test done this week at a pharmacy and got the below result. I’m assuming it’s a positive but it’s worded kind of ambiguous and he can’t get a hold of anyone on the hotline for a clear answer. Can anyone on here with a medical background or who has had a similar test provide any clarity? 

12 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

My friend got his Covid test done this week at a pharmacy and got the below result. I’m assuming it’s a positive but it’s worded kind of ambiguous and he can’t get a hold of anyone on the hotline for a clear answer. Can anyone on here with a medical background or who has had a similar test provide any clarity? 

My guess on this read is that there is no standard range because you shouldn thave any. Its not like a standard range for fasting glucose or something where they could put the value. Standard for a healthy person with covid would be "not detected" But his results, his value is "detected". To me thats a clear positive test. Friend has it. 

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

My guess on this read is that there is no standard range because you shouldn thave any. Its not like a standard range for fasting glucose or something where they could put the value. Standard for a healthy person with covid would be "not detected" But his results, his value is "detected". To me thats a positive test. Friend has it. 

That's what I figured. Appreciate the input. 

@DEagle7

I emailed the financial director for our pipeline out of curiosity.  Rankings depend on whether you lump medicine as a department or if you parse it out into the subspecialties.  As a dept (and that’s how they classify it with their budget) it is profitable because of cards and GI.  OB/GYN is the biggest sieve (after EM, which doesn’t count).  If you separate internal medicine into the sum of its parts, OB is not the worst.  So, you are right about that.  As an academic department, it typically is.  Believe it, don’t believe it, take it for what it’s worth.  

19 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

@DEagle7

I emailed the financial director for our pipeline out of curiosity.  Rankings depend on whether you lump medicine as a department or if you parse it out into the subspecialties.  As a dept (and that’s how they classify it with their budget) it is profitable because of cards and GI.  OB/GYN is the biggest sieve (after EM, which doesn’t count).  If you separate internal medicine into the sum of its parts, OB is not the worst.  So, you are right about that.  As an academic department, it typically is.  Believe it, don’t believe it, take it for what it’s worth.  

Again it's very hard to believe anything after you've made some very clearly false claims about OBs previously and it goes very much against what I've experienced and discussed with both OBs and admins of hospital systems both larger and small. 

I do agree with what you said earlier about this conversation being dumb for everyone else though so I'm tapping out. My fault for letting myself get sucked into pseudo political conversation after saying I wouldn't. 

Sorry everyone else. 

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

And how will these proposals garner enough votes?

This isn't 40 years ago when party discipline was tight, the fly over state Congressmen know they have to run for re-election in states that won't be happy with their support of a radical left (though what is radical is a matter of opinion, I don't consider moving toward Germany's social contract very radical, neither would Bismark). So if there is a Democratic landslide, that doesn't mean the Progressives, who are a minority in the party (or Biden wouldn't be the Presidential candidate) will rule the roost.

Obama and B Clinton certainly weren't radical, they were both about as mainstream as it gets.

McConnell and Trump are radical reactionaries, they hark back to the Gilded Age (Lochner, et al).

We will see an increase in income tax rates, which isn't radical, but a swing back after two major "Supply side" tax cuts that did nothing to increase supply but greatly increased inequality. We'll see a gradual movement to universal health care, which is supported by the vast majority of Americans. We'll see movement toward addressing Climate Change, which again is supported by a super majority. Probably an investment in infrastructure which is long overdue.  None of these things are "radical."

 

Like I said, delusional...

58 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

My friend got his Covid test done this week at a pharmacy and got the below result. I’m assuming it’s a positive but it’s worded kind of ambiguous and he can’t get a hold of anyone on the hotline for a clear answer. Can anyone on here with a medical background or who has had a similar test provide any clarity? 

Kinda ridiculous they would make it so convoluted but yeah, thats a positive test.  Hope your friend is holding up ok. 

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

 

Like I said, delusional...

What do you consider radical?

What is "mainstream"

14 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Again it's very hard to believe anything after you've made some very clearly false claims about OBs previously and it goes very much against what I've experienced and discussed with both OBs and admins of hospital systems both larger and small. 

I do agree with what you said earlier about this conversation being dumb for everyone else though so I'm tapping out. My fault for letting myself get sucked into pseudo political conversation after saying I wouldn't. 

Sorry everyone else. 

No problem; there have been many times I’ve read posts on here and should have known to just walk past — yet I just had to peer down that hole.

By the same token, I’m sure there are a few on here who have learned to pass me by also

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Kinda ridiculous they would make it so convoluted but yeah, thats a positive test.  Hope your friend is holding up ok. 

He’s feeling alright. He had a fever earlier in the week which is gone now. Main symptom right now is fatigue and a minor cough. 

59 minutes ago, TEW said:

This is completely delusional.  If the Democrats get a land slide uber-filibuster proof majority, they will ram every insane leftist idea they can think of down America's throat.

I doubt that. Too many would have to come from swing states and districts. What Afan is hoping for is the swing state/district representatives and senators to rescue the Democratic Party from the Bernie/AOC wing of progressives. I haven’t seen much in the bills from the current Congress that I can’t stomach.  I like those more than Mitch sitting on them. He is afraid to let the Democrats have a win but so is Chuck Shumur, who is stupidly sitting on Scott’s bill. 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Gotta give it up to USC, even when they are in their absolute worst era in decades for recruiting and wins, they still manage to find top tier NFL talent at QB.

1 hour ago, Mandrake_1971 said:

Agreed, I believe a majority of folks are center, even just right of center on several issues.  That's the identity and space that Tony Blair and the Labor Party captured in the UK when they took control. given the state of our politics, I can only hope

I agree with this except on social issues where I think the majority of people are a bit Libertarian.  Sort of, morally I don’t approve of X but it’s none of my damn business whether you do X or not and I certainly am not going to advocate legislation that infringes on you right to do X because your doing X doesn’t impact me or others.  Hell my state sells liquor and runs a numbers game. 

4 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Gotta give it up to USC, even when they are in their absolute worst era in decades for recruiting and wins, they still manage to find top tier NFL talent at QB.

True, but I'll be more impressed when they find one that lives up to their hype in the NFL

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

What do you consider radical?

What is "mainstream"

It’s interesting you consider Trump and McConnell "radical reactionaries” for passing some tax cuts and attempting to enforce immigration laws (majority support), but Obama passes his multi-trillion healthcare bill (majority didn’t support it, BTW) and he’s mainstream.

Look, I’m not going to perpetuate the political conversation in here, and Trump is hardly my idea of a good president, but your idea that the Dems win every swing state plus Texas and suddenly decide to govern in anything but a radical revolutionary manner is just absurd. They’ll pick the two or three biggest, most transformative things they can possibly pass and ram them through, like they always do. My guess would be healthcare, amnesty and gun control would be their priority. Then they’ll lose in the midterms because they overreached.

10 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I doubt that. Too many would have to come from swing states and districts. What Afan is hoping for is the swing state/district representatives and senators to rescue the Democratic Party from the Bernie/AOC wing of progressives. I haven’t seen much in the bills from the current Congress that I can’t stomach.  I like those more than Mitch sitting on them. He is afraid to let the Democrats have a win but so is Chuck Shumur, who is stupidly sitting on Scott’s bill. 

Yeah, I get his argument, it’s just hilariously wrong. Give the Dems ~65 senators and clown world won’t even begin to describe the crap they will try to push through.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Only bold prediction is NC winning the ACC. 

36 minutes ago, austinfan said:

What do you consider radical?

 

You 

8 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yeah, I get his argument, it’s just hilariously wrong. Give the Dems ~65 senators and clown world won’t even begin to describe the crap they will try to push through.

No way either party gets a super majority in the Senate, thankfully. And any party getting a majority s going to have to win swing states and districts. That is why the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering was so disappointing.  We really need a focus on opposing gerrymandering this year given it is a census year.