RFK jr unfairly treated?

Quote: rxwine

Hey, SOOPOO, what is your wife's opinion on fluoride in the water.

My thought, is more cavities, makes Dentist more money. So, if it was about money, they'd be anti-fluoridation.

She said it is the single reason cavities have decreased substantially from pre fluoride water supplies.

“Anyone who doesn’t think fluoride should be in the water supply is a fxxxing idiot.”

That me quoting her.

Quote: SOOPOO

She said it is the single reason cavities have decreased substantially from pre fluoride water supplies.

“Anyone who doesn’t think fluoride should be in the water supply is a fxxxing idiot.”

That me quoting her.

Okay, so do both you and your wife oppose politicians who oppose fluoridation, or is your Dem hatred so strong that are willing to violate another of your principles?

Quote: SOOPOO

So much misinformation in this thread presented as fact.

LOL at the AMA being a bully! LESS THAN ONE IN SIX doctors are AMA members. The TOTAL political budget for the AMA, for Presidential election, Senatorial elections, Cngressional elections, is around $20 million. It’s not even close to being a FRACTION as important as ELON MUSK!

Geno is correct on Medicare funding residency spots. But they don’t come close to filling without FMG’s. (Foreign medical graduates). We, UB Anesthesiology, always had a need for FMGs to fil our spots. It certainly is not a free market system. There have been times the government has opened more primary care spots at the expense of specialty (like anesthesiology) spots. The result? There became a shortage of anesthesiologists, driving salaries up. And an oversupply of internists, driving their salaries down! Gotta love government interference!

Is there anything preventing private funding of residency positions?

How many residencies would be available each year if the Feds didn't fund residencies? And would they be skewed towards certain specialties?

from now on I am just going to write K, short for RFK, in this thread. For one thing I keep typing RKF and then have to go back and change it grrrrrrrrrr

I think it is the flouride in the toothpaste that has made the difference, my opinion worth the proverbial 2 cents

You've prompted me to check into it. I didn't know Utah has stopped putting fluoride in the water

Otherwise, my conclusion is that we seem to live in the era of studies that command no respect, they will indicate something and then all kinds of people will be able to claim it is a flawed study. Although I can understand why some of these that are truly flawed happen because they are funded by people who have an agenda, I don't understand how this just seems to be routine. In the matter of fluoride in drinking water, it seems that some studies have indications that are concerning, and I would advocate better studies before coming to conclusions.

K may in fact be way too ready to take action on flawed studies and this may be an instance of this. He certainly does not know how to avoid appearing to do this

you'll remember I said my fairness concerns aren't because I am some kind of Groupie or something

Quote: GenoDRPh

Is there anything preventing private funding of residency positions?

How many residencies would be available each year if the Feds didn't fund residencies? And would they be skewed towards certain specialties?

One thing though -- even if you increase the number of MDs, you need people possibly willing to work in areas where the same profession is going to pay less. Or alternatively, willing to travel a lot to make up for low volume.

Lemme see if I can make soopoo mad again by saying I've noticed that there are too many doctors too ready to go for making money

Back not so long ago, 18th century for sure, it was not considered a profession to choose to make money

Quote: GenoDRPh

Is there anything preventing private funding of residency positions?

How many residencies would be available each year if the Feds didn't fund residencies? And would they be skewed towards certain specialties?

Great question! In my specialty, an anesthesia resident can accomplish the same ‘work’ as around 1.5 CRNAs. A CRNA now costs with salary and bennies upwards of $300k a year. So if I get 2 ‘free’ residents that’s around $900k in CRNAs I don’t need to employ. There are certainly hidden costs in training someone, inefficiencies, great malpractice exposure, etc…. But $900k is $900k. A solo practicing anesthesiologist doing his own cases let’s say makes $600k a year now, after expenses. Our expenses are super low compared to internists, pediatricians, surgeons…. anyone who needs to run and staff an ‘office’. But if I’m supervising two residents simultaneously I generate twice as much as the solo guy. You don’t make double because usually you are subsiding a chairman, a guy who is doing research, etc…. (1.5 because average work hours are 60/week, not 40 like CRNAs).

And I do not think anything prevents private funding of residency spots, but I think there is some sort of accreditation that is limited to the Medicare funded spots. Fellowships the same. I am sure there are many ‘non-accredited’ fellowship positions that are privately funded. Think ‘the cardiologist doesn’t need to be woken up at 3am for most problems his fellow can handle until ‘regular’ hours.’

It’s really complicated. In the first half of my career, private practice, we paid some sort of donation to the university for the residents. Like $$ to send them to a conference, buy extra books, or stock their break room with food and drink, etc….
In the second half I was a salaried employee and it didn’t matter to me if I was supervising a cheap resident or an expensive CRNA or doing cases solo. My salary didn’t change.

Until the pandemic I gave lectures on the various business models and economic factors in anesthesia practices.

Quote: odiousgambit

Lemme see if I can make soopoo mad again by saying I've noticed that there are too many doctors too ready to go for making money

Back not so long ago, 18th century for sure, it was not considered a profession to choose to make money

One reason I'm more left than right. I believe ALL of society should sacrifice so we don't necessarily have to ask certain professions to sacrifice pay to fill needed spots. School teachers shouldn't be buying their students school supplies out of their own salaries. And schools shouldn't be funded according to wealth of the area.

I'm all aboard with the original idea that a post office stamp costs the same to deliver from a rural area even though we are supplementing the travel.

OTOH, once that baseline is in place I don't care how much someone can individually make.

Too many conservatives want to reward people having kids they can't afford because they're pro life, but then don't want to support the results when we give out welfare checks and complain about why people did that in the first place who have 6 kids and won't work 3 jobs also to support them.

Quote: odiousgambit

Lemme see if I can make soopoo mad again by saying I've noticed that there are too many doctors too ready to go for making money

Back not so long ago, 18th century for sure, it was not considered a profession to choose to make money

Mad? Nah. I’ve seen it of course. But is it more prevalent than lawyers, plumbers, restaurateurs, table game designers, etc…. Probably not. In my career it was easy to avoid those thoughts on a daily basis. I came to work, and did the cases that I was assigned to do. With the very short lived exception of moonlighting on an OB ward, I almost always wanted to do less cases, not more!

Quote: odiousgambit

Lemme see if I can make soopoo mad again by saying I've noticed that there are too many doctors too ready to go for making money

Back not so long ago, 18th century for sure, it was not considered a profession to choose to make money

A physician with medical school/college debt, rent, insurance and perhaps a family certainly needs to make pretty penny to service that debt obligation, and then some. I don't begrudge physicians for expecting fair pay for their services.