Jaxom 1974 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 26 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Normally, I'd file a response to this. But, I've been requested to stop. So, I have nothing further to say, at this juncture, about this matter. Jeez...it was a suggestion that the ACA talk had gone beyond politics and might be worthy of another thread...and since when the he'll has anyone ever paid attention to me? Yeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Jaxom 1974 said: Jeez...it was a suggestion that the ACA talk had gone beyond politics and might be worthy of another thread...and since when the he'll has anyone ever paid attention to me? Yeesh. Look man, we all stand up and pay attention to those who spend most of their budget on Hank Baskett. You have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 18 minutes ago, aceluby said: I understand that we want doctors to be altruistic and only want what is best for their patients, but that is just not the case. I've had plenty of experiences of surgeons recommending unnecessary surgeries; especially neck, back, and wrist issues. Some doctors that are very good a performing surgery are very bad at exhausting all avenues before surgery. Doctors are people too and it's ridiculous to think that the workforce isn't the same as any other workforce. Some are good. A few are very good. But most are average or below. So we shouldn't be basing policy thinking that agreed upon doctor and patient solutions are infallible. The non-regulatory approach has to assume that, and it's wrong. clear quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, aceluby said: Doctors will never always come to the right decision no matter what. Two highly specialized doctors can come up with two very different treatments for the same issue. Both could be right. Both could be wrong. Indeed they can. I don't see how heavy regulation of phyisicans in such circumstances is helpful in treating patients. I do recognize that if single payer is enacted heavy regulations will come with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Ace, So the regulations will force doctors, when seconds count, to always come to the right decision? We improved door-to-balloon and door-to-drug times for STEMIs and strokes pretty significantly thanks to regulations, Scot, to good improvements in outcomes. Protocols work on the aggregate, especially if they're well-designed and flexible. As an example for emergent care: outcomes tend to be better when teams stick strongly to the ACLS protocol instead of deviating from it. You can have a doc running a cardiac arrest and making shit up as he goes along and things will go pretty well if he's not an idiot, but if everyone involved knows and follows the general ACLS protocols when it comes to med admin, timing, pulse checks, and shocks, you'll get better results. If we're going by the protocol, I can have appropriate dosages drawn up and ready to give before the doctor decides to order it. Now, that doesn't preclude other interventions as necessary to fix the problem, but in general, protocols produce better, not worse, outcomes because what your doctor wants isn't the end-all of healthcare. Being able to anticipate and planned is a huge benefit, one that significantly outweighs the supposed "limiting" of choice. When seconds count is literally when you want to have things as preset and pre-planned as possible. And when you have more time for longer treatment plans, those are when you actually do have time to sit down and be aware of what supposed regulatory actions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 23 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Approx pages 5-9. Give or take a page or two. A series of jokes and two hypotheticals about what it might mean if it were true. I think your definition of serious and mine don't jibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said: We improved door-to-balloon and door-to-drug times for STEMIs and strokes pretty significantly thanks to regulations, Scot, to good improvements in outcomes. Protocols work on the aggregate, especially if they're well-designed and flexible. As an example for emergent care: outcomes tend to be better when teams stick strongly to the ACLS protocol instead of deviating from it. You can have a doc running a cardiac arrest and making shit up as he goes along and things will go pretty well if he's not an idiot, but if everyone involved knows and follows the general ACLS protocols when it comes to med admin, timing, pulse checks, and shocks, you'll get better results. If we're going by the protocol, I can have appropriate dosages drawn up and ready to give before the doctor decides to order it. Now, that doesn't preclude other interventions as necessary to fix the problem, but in general, protocols produce better, not worse, outcomes because what your doctor wants isn't the end-all of healthcare. Being able to anticipate and planned is a huge benefit, one that significantly outweighs the supposed "limiting" of choice. When seconds count is literally when you want to have things as preset and pre-planned as possible. And when you have more time for longer treatment plans, those are when you actually do have time to sit down and be aware of what supposed regulatory actions are. Okay, now that's interesting. So, scripts for generalized situations help in the aggregate. What happens with weird stuff that falls outside the protocols? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Okay, now that's interesting. So, scripts for generalized situations help in the aggregate. What happens with weird stuff that falls outside the protocols? It doesn't happen nearly as much as medical shows make it out to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: It doesn't happen nearly as much as medical shows make it out to happen. That's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Looks like CNN finally found its' gonads... http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: That's fair. Also, you're largely talking about emergent care, which has very important protocols and rules in place because they save lives and do so because they allow everyone to move quickly towards the most likely outcome. ER isn't, however, the typical treatment path, and most people can either get treated for normal things and move on or have bad outcomes and then get re-evaluated. And those evaluations have a pretty big spectrum of options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Indeed they can. I don't see how heavy regulation of phyisicans in such circumstances is helpful in treating patients. I do recognize that if single payer is enacted heavy regulations will come with it. I think it's up to you to prove harm, if that's your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 minute ago, aceluby said: I think it's up to you to prove harm, if that's your claim. I think I've been shown to be wrong with the discussion of protocols for common situations. It's very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Looks like Trump calling them out finally made CNN drop the pretense and just go into all out anti-Trump overdrive. Not like they haven't always been, but now its out in the open. Like the anchors have been given the "look suitably outraged and affronted" order from the top. Kate Baldoan (or however the hell you spell her name) practically dripping with anti-Trump sarcasm and venom while anchoring a panel discussion on today's events. And this just after Christianne Amanpour completed an interview with Obama's Education secretary, smilingly begging him to describe how Obama, in Amanpour's glowing words "knocked it out of the park" in his farewell speech. Real neutrality there, alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Look man, we all stand up and pay attention to those who spend most of their budget on Hank Baskett. You have to. Hey. That move panned out for about one half of one game. And as we can see, despite OGE's reaction, no one else listened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: Looks like Trump calling them out finally made CNN drop the pretense and just go into all out anti-Trump overdrive. Not like they haven't always been, but now its out in the open. Like the anchors have been given the "look suitably outraged and affronted" order from the top. Kate Baldoan (or however the hell you spell her name) practically dripping with anti-Trump sarcasm and venom while anchoring a panel discussion on today's events. And this just after Christianne Amanpour completed an interview with Obama's Education secretary, smilingly begging him to describe how Obama, in Amanpour's glowing words "knocked it out of the park" in his farewell speech. Real neutrality there, alright. It absolutely is neutral. If Obama had attacked CNN I'm sure they'd react with similar outrage. Neutrality doesn't mean passivity, even though that might be what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Kalbear said: It absolutely is neutral. If Obama had attacked CNN I'm sure they'd react with similar outrage. Neutrality doesn't mean passivity, even though that might be what you want. Oh come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Looks like Trump calling them out finally made CNN drop the pretense and just go into all out anti-Trump overdrive. Not like they haven't always been, but now its out in the open. Like the anchors have been given the "look suitably outraged and affronted" order from the top. Kate Baldoan (or however the hell you spell her name) practically dripping with anti-Trump sarcasm and venom while anchoring a panel discussion on today's events. And this just after Christianne Amanpour completed an interview with Obama's Education secretary, smilingly begging him to describe how Obama, in Amanpour's glowing words "knocked it out of the park" in his farewell speech. Real neutrality there, alright. Ummmm.... he didn't call them out. He told a bald faced lie and told them they were 'fake news'. He deserves any fallout from that kind of brash stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: Oh come on. How is it not? Again, you're suggesting neutrality (as you define it) is the right option when a news network is attacked. The right option is that no matter WHO does the attack, you respond the same way. That is neutrality and lack of bias. What you're saying is that you respond with no action and no viewpoint REGARDLESS of being attacked, and that isn't neutrality at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Real neutrality there, alright. You expect neutrality after that press conference? He just took a piss in their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.