I won't comment on what I think of the Dept of Education. After sitting through some of those education classes at college in order to have a fallback plan if my majors didn't help, I have no respect for those courses, a big waste of time. Federal beaurocrats and education is a double pain. I aced those classes and never cracked the book, slept through some of the classes and didn't really miss all that much. It was mostly drivel.
Having said all that, my primary care physician doesn't overbook and I rarely have to wait more than 5 minutes to be seen. My nephrologist on the other hand, deals with people who have serious existing problems and sometimes runs a little late. I can forgive the nephrologist because unlike many of her specialty, she does more than look at numbers and treat with pills and machines. She discusses diet and stress and other aspects of healthcare including the effectiveness of various possible treatments, including treatments which are nonclinical.
We do need more doctors. We need more doctors in some fields and fewer in others. We currently "let the market decide" to some degree, and that results in people wandering outside their training. We need our state universities and teaching hospitals to ramp up for the need in advance. We need them to stop playing Good Old BOy type games and to recruit students with potential from a young age instead of complaining that too few students are qualified to begin the process. There are kids out there who don't know that they can be doctors. That isn't a measure of their intelligence, it's a cultural thing we have indulged in the name of continuity. We can't afford to play the hereditary doctor game anymore.
You probably could have gotten in had you been more demanding, and failing that could have gone to Urgent Care could you not?
President George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 28%, the lowest of his administration. Bush's approval is lower than that of any president since World War II, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (who had a low point of 28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered ratings in the low- to mid-20% range in the last years of their administrations.
Most Recent (13-14 Jan 09) Approve 34% 31% 36% 13% 67% 29% Disapprove 58% 61% 56% 82% 25% 61%
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz2H8Y2pKyL
You know some of those Bush supporters had to be independent.
Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.
"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."
Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.
I'm sorry, but the liberals warned them about some of that stuff. They didn't listen. They whine later.
The source itself rates the content as "half truth".
Besides the "other factors" that they themselves allude to as making Boxer's statements "half true", the comparison of private vs. public overhead is specious.
A chronic complaint of most private entities is that the administrative burden of Medicare increases cost to patients, doctors, and facilities alike. In effect, Medicare, by placing its administrative requirements on the deliverers of covered care, has artificially shifted much of what should be its own overhead onto the private sector.
Also, Medicare is only one segment of the federal entitlement budget, about 22% of the total federal budget. Add in SS and Welfare, and entitlement spending adds up to a little over 60% of total federal spending.
What I'd like to see is a breakout of the budgets for Medicare, SS, and Welfare, showing how much of that budget actually gets paid out in benefits, labor, facility support, etc. vs. total budget for each expenditure. I distrust the Medicare report of overhead for the reasons cited in the article, and for the fact that nowhere in any articles I can find, is the non-value-added manpower and labor mentioned. Only fixed costs like facilities, utilities, and hard goods ever seem to get mentioned when any of these articles discuss "overhead".
Still haven't found any source for budget breakouts like this....
I have a suspicion that many docs down here are going to retire. There have been articles in our local lib rag about how so many more baby boomers will be retiring to the Sarasota area soon. Combine docs retiring as they don't want to be slaves to Obamacare, more students opting not to go to medical school at the time when more docs will be desperately needed, and we'll always be waiting a long time for appointments.
And unless I'm extremely sick, wouldn't go to one of those urgent care places. They have no idea of existing health problems. It's like I had a vet in St Louis in a large clinic that only had a 4 hour window that was uncovered. If I'd select a vet so my dogs could get the best quality health care in a crisis, why would I do less for myself at an urgent care clinic? I don't have that luxury down here for our dogs, but thankfully we have younger, healthier dogs. I needed the best of care for Blue (the grey pictured in my avatar). He had epilepsy and other problems for many years and was kept in good shape by our vet in St Louis. He only lasted about a year here.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|