Poor Medical Student

Congratulations President Obama

2008-11-05T04:28:00.000Z

A bit of a shock, but not entirely unexpected. Congratulations are due the Democratic party and President-Elect Obama. In what appears to be a clear mandate for 'change', here's hoping we see that 'post partisan' spirit we've heard so much about. I'd also like my tax cut as soon as possible, if not sooner.

For those that are disheartened by the direction our country appears to have taken, don't be. Things change every two years, so focus on coming up with substantive ideas for fixing the real problems of this country: tax inequality, bankrupt pension systems (most notable social security), ever-expanding government with emphasis on decreased efficiency (requires hiring of more people). These are the fundamental problems we must address going forward if we are to navigate the difficult economic and social pitfalls that lie ahead. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Start using that intellect for something besides tearing others down and we can push forward an agenda that doesn't merely take back power, but actually rebuilds the country into the dominant country the rest of the world still envisions it as.

Don't need ID to vote in Ohio

2008-10-29T14:03:00.002Z

So, voted early for the election in Ohio and guess what, no ID was required. The options were:

1. Valid Ohio Driver's License
2. Last 4 of SSN
3. Copy of a bill demonstrating name and current address.

Yes, really. And in fact, I was asked for none of the above, simply had to check a box and put some numbers in for the SSN. So, if I can faslely register 1000s of names, then show up at different polling places to vote using the last 4 of the SSN I put on the registrations, I'm home free.

Well done Ohio, well done.

Leave it to the Brits

2008-10-23T01:48:00.002Z

In the above linked article, Britain has taken the first step in allowing human-animal embryo creation for recovery of stem cells. Disgusting, not to mention a waste of time. There are plenty of articles on pubmed detailing the benefits of using adult stem cells, while at the same time, a paucity of research supporting embryonic stem cell research as a means by which to cure Alzheimers and Cystic Fibrosis.

I especially love this part:

"The wide-ranging bill, which has been debated for months, would also allow "saviour siblings" -- children created as a close genetic match for a sick brother or sister so their genetic material can help treat them."

If you get sick, we'll just use your twin to help. Nevermind that we're artifically creating life for the benefit of 1 individual over another, while at the same time, encouraging the destruction of life to meld with an animal embryo. I wonder what happens if both siblings require help. Which one do you potentially sacrifice for the good of the other? Maybe we should create a backup for the backup.

Oh, that Biden....

2008-10-20T19:06:00.002Z

If you haven't seen already, Biden pulls a Biden (sorry, I'm too lazy to link). Basically, he stated that Obama will be 'tested' by an international crisis within 6 months of taking office. Congrats to Biden for speaking the obvious, and in doing so, explaining exactly why we shouldn't elect Obambi to the highest position of leadership in the free world.

Not only that, but Obambi demonstrated horrible judgment in picking Biden as his VP. Funny that that the other side screams about non-vetting of Palin, yet whole-heartedly feels Biden was any better.

Plumber Joe

2008-10-17T11:11:00.002Z

First off, the fact that this man owes back taxes doesn't make him an 'average Joe', it puts him on the level of the Ways and Means Committe Chairman. Did I mention Rangel is a Democrat? Wonder if that's why Joe gets lambasted while Rangel goes on without a peep from Politico?

Secondly, as the plumber himself stated, he works under another and uses his bosses license. This is certainly not unheard of and there is no license requirement in Ohio to perform residential work (update: according to plumbers I've spoken with. Apparently, Toledo's gov't feels differently). Nice line of attack Obamamatons. I'm sure all those other plumbers and 'unlicensed', hard-working, blue collar voters just love what you're doing to Joe for asking a simple question.

Lastly, listen to what Joe said in the question. He didn't say he already makes over $250,000, thusly incurring the Obama tax hike now. He said Obama's tax hike would affect him when he goes (FUTURE TENSE) to purchase that small business. It's not even subtle, but then again, neither is the MSMs fawning over the Democrat's candidate.

End of the Democrats?

2008-10-02T20:10:00.003Z

Quite a bit of pressure for Obama. With the polls strongly in his favor and only a few short weeks left, in all likelihood we will have a Democratic Congress and a Liberal President (don't fool yourself, he is further left than every other Democrat on every issue). When was the last time that happened? What were the results? Suffice it to say, with real problems in this country there is pressure on the worst rated Congress (Democrat controlled) in history to make something of the next four years. If not, I'd guess the amount of time they'll stay out of power following a failure would be counted in decades.

Hopefully the failure I believe is coming (in social and fiscal policies) will not morally and fiscally bankrupt this country. Not that Bush was the picture of fiscal conservatism, but a massive undertaking such as socialization of medical care (for only 7-10 million Americans), 'fixing' a broken Social Security System, 'fixing' a broken and already overfunded education system, and a return to 'progressive' tax systems spells 'DOOM' in my mind.

We shall see.

Already priced in

2008-10-01T19:41:00.003Z

So, there's lots of talk that we no longer need a 'rescue' or 'bailout' simply because the market has rebounded, hence Wall Street is fine. I think there is danger in this assumption that NO plan is needed from Washington. Firstly, I believe the market is pricing in an eventual bailout. As such, people are a little more confident buying in (especially at low prices when company values as a whole really have not changed).

Secondly, other countries are pumping in money and helping with the liquidity crisis to stave off worsening market downturns. Taken together, it's easy to see how the NYSE and other markets have rebounded at least partially since the sell off. Getting complacent and saying "we don't need anything" will only cause a worse selloff without hope of a quick turnaround.

Throw 'em all out

2008-09-26T11:24:00.002Z

With the resultant politicization of the bailout, arguably one of the most important issues of the past decade, both parties have shown their true colors. It's not about the American economy, let alone the American people. It's about each side attempting to save face and score points leading up to the election. Shame on everyone involved, including both candidates. Shame on Bush for letting it happen.

Time to kick everyone out of Congress. Time to start fresh with new blood and new ideas. Time to invoke term limits on all members of the House and Senate. It's time to see real 'change', not just rhetoric.

These bozos better get back to the table and hammer out a deal that will 1) help liquidity, 2) give stabilization to the markets (the rest of the world needs to help as well, since as we know, as America goes so goes the world) and 3) NOT REWARD SPECULATORS, EXECUTIVES or any other asshole attempting to benefit from this meltdown. The only 'person' that should conceivably receive any 'return' on this investment should be the taxpayers. In effect, value the debt as low as possible so that 1) it creates almost an automatic return for investors (i.e. taxpayers) and 2) it creates a feasible market for these securities as banks attempt to place true value and buy accordingly.

It's time the government governed, but I'm too cynical to think lawmakers will ever do anything outside their own interests. Fukk I hate politics.

Churchill knew what he was saying

2008-09-23T12:57:00.003Z

Let me give you an analogy of our upcoming brain trust coming out of college: Father/Daughter Talk: A young woman was about to finish her first year of college Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth..She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition tohigher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors hadto be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded byasking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting thatshe was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because s he spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.' Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!' The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party'. THIS explains politics in simple terms that even a Democrat can understand.

The above was lifted from here.

Exactly. Churchill's comment springs to mind here. It's not that Republicans aren't about helping others (look at studies of giving and you'll see they actually give more than self-proclaimed progressives), it's that Republicans don't want the government attempting to redistribute wealth under corrupt/idiotic pretenses.

Rape victims billed for rape kits

2008-09-19T16:17:00.005Z

There is no excuse for this. Palin is wrong, as are the many other elected officials that allow this to take place. If one of the few duties (in my opinion) of the government is to protect citizens (meaning arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating), the governement (tax payers) should foot the bill for the rape kits.

UPDATE 9.23.08
There are reports abounding now in the internet that Palin likely did not know of this practice in Wasilla, mostly because it was never used. It became illegal in 2000. It's still reprehensible that this would occur, but apparently it didn't under Palin's watch. Score one for the good girls.

Irrelevant...

2008-09-19T16:17:00.001Z

...since June 6, 1955. Yep, Sandra Bernhard.

Ahh, Canadiaville, Bastion of Eugenics

2008-09-11T15:49:00.002Z

Sick.

Most notably, this statistic (which I'm sure is close in the United States and elsewhere in the world:

Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.

And yet these are the same crew decrying BusHitler?! Amazing.

Taxes are for the 'others'

2008-09-06T15:52:00.003Z

Democratic hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong; all politicians are hypocrites. They say whatever it takes to get elected, then work towards their own self interests. However, this points to a fascinating manner in which a Democrat (certainly not the first, last or only) argues for INCREASED taxation of the public to pay for poorly managed, government-run programs, but decides he wants to keep more of his money out of the tax bucket.

This reminds me of the "abortion is killing, unless the mom is 1) raped/victim of incest or 2) mom's health is in danger". Sorry, it's either killing or not. Either Rangel is for higher taxation of wealthy individuals to provide for government programs, or he's not. His actions point towards the latter, but his liberal rhetoric points towards the former. What is the cliche about judging a man by his actions?

Bill Maher: Unbelievable Douche

2008-09-06T12:30:00.002Z

Following in the steps of my Kerry comment from years ago, Bill Maher earns the honors this month. If you haven't read his speech, just google it (I'm too lazy to find the link). Basically, he says the attacks on Obama as elitist stem from jealousy of a Magna Cum Laude Harvard Grad by Wal-Mart going rednecks.

Hmm...I remember when I was younger thinking of myself as 'above' others thanks to my education. I used to think my views were the only ones worth having. As I've matured, lived a little, I've learned that my views are still the only ones worth having I just don't need to be smug about it. I can respect those who think differently than me without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Also, Liberals are far from the only intellectual olympians they make themselves out to be. There are plenty of smart individuals that despise liberal ideals, they just don't make themselves known openly due to hubris.

Lastly, how does Maher explain me supporting fiscally conservative, socially moderate, libertarianesque views when I've got multiple undergrad degrees (not magna cum laude, just cum laude :( ), an MD and board scores above the 90th percentile for my specialty? Am I just a confused, lost Democrat? Can someone forward me directions to the next meeting?

Tired of the '47 Million Uninsured' Argument

2008-09-04T23:36:00.002Z

Michael Tanner, health policy expert @ the Cato Institute, wrote this (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf) well-researched article on different healthcare systems outside the United States. Be sure the read the entire thing.

The following is what I would like everyone to remember each time '47 million uninsured' is thrown about.

11. Carmen DeNavas-Walt et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005,” Current Population Reports (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). This number should be approached with a great deal of caution, however. A study for the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that the Current Population Survey “appears to overstate the uninsured substantially compared to other surveys.” Cathy Callahan and James Mays, “Working Paper: Estimating the Number of Individuals in the United States without Health Insurance,” Actuarial Research Service, prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005), p. 22. Other studies put the actual number of uninsured at 21–31 million. Congressional Budget Office, “How Many People Lack Health Insurance and for How Long?” (Washington: Congressional Budget Office, 2003). Moreover, all those estimates include people who could obtain coverage. For example, as many as one-third of Americans without health insurance are eligible for existing government programs such as Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program but have failed to sign up for the program. BlueCross BlueShield ssociation, “The Uninsured in America,” January 2005, www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf. Roughly another third live in households with annual incomes above $50,000, suggesting that many could reasonably afford to purchase insurance if they chose to do so. Devon Herrick, “Crisis of the Uninsured: 2007,” National Center for Policy analysis Brief Analysis no. 595, September 28, 2007.

Everyone get that?! Closer estimates are 21-31 million uninsured, of which 33% (7-10 million) are eligible for Gov't programs but have not signed up and another 33% (7-10 million) could afford health insurance without reasonable hardship (especially if the Gov't furthers HSAs). So, Michael Moore, 7-11 million sounds more reasonable for the number of uninsured in this country (roughly 2-3.7% of the population).

Is that enough reason to destroy the de facto 'best' health care provider in the world by turning it into a socialized system? No. Read the above-linked study and you'll understand.

Way to go Brokaw

2008-09-03T02:29:00.003Z

blah, blah, blah.....McCain is redefining himself at the convention...blah, blah, blah...against what Obama defined him as last week....they'll make a move, checkmate, another move....blah, blah, blah

So, Brokaw basically states McCain has already lost the defining of McCain after what Obama portrayed last week @ the DNC. Way to be impartial you ancient boob.

Little Medical Information

2008-09-01T03:00:00.002Z

With regards to the Palin/Bristol pregnancy thing....4 weeks early is not 'premature'. STFU if you don't know what you're talking about.

NOBama

2008-08-29T20:32:00.004Z

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said. -- 'Them' refers to his daughters.

Stumbled across the following response from an individual online: Any man who thinks of children as punishments should volunteer for castration.

What's wrong with our society today? When less than 1% of abortions are completed due to rape/incest, how do we justify our position of pro-choice? If you cannot take care of baby, don't have sex. I know this sounds naive, but babies are gifts, not punishments.

Obama sucks. Period. His speech last night was shit as well. Way to outline your plans; sounded like a damn Democrat rally from 20 years ago.

UPDATE 9.1.08
Barack Obama's mother was an unmarried @ 18 when she gave birth; his Grandmother subsequently raised him while his mother tended to other affairs. Does Barack feel he was a 'punishment'? If only he was POTUS at the time of conception to provide counseling about the best way to take care of such a 'mistake'....this election cycle might have been completely different.

By the way, I'm perfectly willing to concede that women can take responsiblity for their own bodies by way of abortion without government intervention if the pro-choice crowd can simply acknowledge that the act of abortion ends a life. Also, overturning of Roe v Wade would only send the matter of abortion legality back to the states, it would not make abortion illegal across the US.

Gotta Love Cali

2008-08-19T03:52:00.002Z

I doubt I'll ever live in California, despite the beautiful landscape and picture-perfect weather. It always amazes me when judges attempt to dictate from the bench, as opposed to letting lawmakers create laws based on what citizens support (based on voting, etc). This case is a perfect example. Don't get me wrong; artificial insemmination of gays is not my issue. My issue is FORCING a physician to do something he feels violates his religious beliefs. The court has decided that the rights of the gay couple to not be discriminated are more important than the rights of the physician with regards to religion.

Why not put it to a vote?

Oh yea, and forcing a physician to do something is not anything I'd ever do. Think about it.

Patient: Doc, I want you to perform a procedure on me you disagree with on personal/religous grounds.

Doc: That's not a good idea. Why don't we send you to someone that actually wants to perform said procedure.

Patient: No, you need to do it. And if you don't, I'm going to sue you.

Doc: Not only do I disagree with the procedure on blah blah grounds, I don't take kindly to threats.

Patient: Tough. Do it or else.

Doc: Hmm....I'm sure we can perform your open roux-en-y gastric bypass with minimal local anesthetic and a single percocet. Enjoy.

Hmm...Maybe I'll Have Time Again

2008-08-18T17:42:00.003Z

So, it's been 4 years since my last post. Not sure I'll pick this back up on a regular basis due to time constraints, but we'll see.

Cheney Can't Have Flu Shot?

2004-10-21T02:54:00.000Z

Hmm, this report is rather interesting. Is the Kerry Campaign really THIS out of touch, suggesting that Cheney did not need a flu shot?

As Dean Wormer once said "Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

John Kerry, Unbelievable Douche

2004-10-01T01:59:00.000Z

Only going to mention one thing with regards to this debate. John Kerry has no idea what he is talking about. That he has mentioned, multiple times in fact, North Korea 'getting' nuclear weapons during the Bush Adminstration. If you believe that, you're as stupid as Kerry is, especially given the barrage of intel demonstrating N.Korea has had nuclear capability since Clinton was in power.

Good Medical Tip

2004-08-12T22:17:00.000Z

If you c/o pain, and a physician asks what has worked in the past to relieve pain, do not answer "Vicodin q4" or "Percocet TID". In fact, don't mention any sort of narcotic unless you are being seen in a pain clinic, and even then, you should only be requesting said meds from that physician.

The result of doing the above is an immediate bias towards your presentation with a constant blinking reminder "drug-seeker". Might be untrue, but sorry, that's the world we live in.

Bias In Medicine?

2004-08-12T10:10:00.000Z

So, overheard in conversation between faculty and r2 yesterday was the following interesting political view (slightly paraphrased as my memory allows):

Patient complaining of not getting medical care, when asked who she would vote for, said she wanted to vote for the most 'Godly' man; the man against homosexual marriages and such. It always amazes me, those who need the most help vote for those who have no plans to help them. They don't understand that if you vote for Republicans, you're voting to immediately cut health care service for the poor.

Wow. I didn't venture a response, as that would have been stupid. But suffice it to say, this isn't the first time I've heard such a response on the floor, nor will it be the last. Are people simply dense, or do they truly believe that Republicans are out to screw everyone but the super-riche? Where does such a misunderstanding come from? I refuse to believe that Michael Moore is responsible for the out-and-out lies that spew from regular individual's mouths when discussing politics, but I am at a loss of the true cause.

My guess is that individuals think that privatizing services == cutting services for the poor. Or that if the government doesn't perform the service, it's not a worthy service. Either of the above are quite stupid, in my opinion, but I strongly believe many individuals represent these views. So sad.

Leave comments if you have any ideas.

Alcohol The New Wunderdrug

2004-08-05T01:26:00.000Z

After reports stating the bliss that can be had from drinking Guinness, and now this study stating that drinking half a bottle of wine per day can make you smarter, I thought I'd piss on the party.

First off, the study recently published stating the latter of the two statements above has quite a few holes. Most notably, when researchers controlled for 'education' using a slipshod standard of 'earning power', almost all statistical significance was lost in those areas whereby education has the most benefit (verbal and mathematical problem solving). Hence, those who were smarter, remained smarter even after drinking wine. Lo and behold, those who are 'smarter', have larger job responsibilities, etc. are more prone to 1) stress, which is relieved via alcohol and 2) the uncanny ability to still be smart AFTER drinking. We all know that people act stupid while drunk, but it's not as if individuals lose 100 iq points during a kegger.

With the above in mind, I'd also like to quote the following from Blueprints Psychiatry, 3rd Edition:

Alcohol-dependent patients also develop elevated [HDL] cholesterol and decreased [LDL] cholesterol....

Wow, taken completely out of context, we've got the next statin on our hands in a much cheaper form. However, since we're not morons, we know that telling an overweight person to become an alcoholic to reduce LDL and raise HDL is rather stupid. Incidentally, we should have the same reaction to this wasteful study, whereby the authors weren't even stupid enough to say that drinking alcohol in such amounts would be beneficial, regardless of the apparent 'increase' in intelligence they purported to find.

Psychiatry

2004-08-04T03:22:00.000Z

As my first rotation comes to a close, I figured it was time to start a series. Not intending to go into psych upon graduation, this rotation was seen as a way to ease into 3rd year. In this regard, it didn't disappoint. However, I did come away with some surprises.

First off, the job is harder than most give credit for being. Because psych deals with many unknowns, it's quite easy for students and MDs alike to scoff at the purveyors of anti-psychotics as less than medical. While being wholy unfair, it's rather disengenious. True, the schedule is more lax,but to say the health professionals involved are not working as hard or expending as much effort as a CT surgeon is simply untrue. To paraphrase from a review article on dementia/delirium, the psych consult will have to make the distinction as most MDs will be unable. Try to remember that folks.

Secondly, I learned more in this rotation with regards to diagnosis, pharmacology and treatment than in my entire first two years of school. Maybe it's because I was finally able to put symptoms and diagnoses with treatment and drugs, as opposed to learning about them in separate 'pods', but whatever the reason, it's quite a feeling. We'll see how the shelf exam goes though before I post my 'Mission Accomplished' banner.

Lastly, I learned that while many individuals see physicians for more concrete reasons, taking psych into account is extremely important. The key to a good history is finding out some of those gritty details, such as family history of psych diagnoses, or even sexual abuse. Of course, these are usually the most uncomfortable questions to ask a patient, but that's why we get paid the little bucks. Most patients are more than willing to cooperate as long as you treat them as a human being, not as 1% of your mortgage.

All in all, it was a rather fulfilling experience. I know the upcoming rotations will test me in different ways (mostly stamina), but I fear I will not have the same great feeling that comes with taking an acute schizophrenic, restarting her Zyprexa, and sending her back out to conquer the world a mere 3-4 days later. The satisfaction that comes with seeing a truly sick individual recover in such a drastic fashion is something I will most certainly miss.

P.S. It's been rather hard, but I also learned that not being cynical of adolescent pysch inpatient is tantamount to treating them. Some kids are a pain in the arse, but any kid you see on the unit needs help. Be sure to provide it.

Don't Waste Samples

2004-08-03T17:48:00.000Z

Noticed a nursing tech opening up samples bottles of meds and placing the pills in a large container. When asked what was going on, she stated that the samples had expired and it was time to ship them back to the drug company. There must've been over 5000 doses of that one drug sitting in the container.

What a waste. If you get samples, give them out. If you cannot give them out before they expire, donate them to a needy clinic close by so that they can be used. Seriously, someone should not have to be told something like this.

Do You Trust The Market?

2004-08-02T23:25:00.000Z

Guess that depends on one's political persuasion. First will start with what the market currently says about Bush's reelection:

Bid: 53.6 Ask: 54.2

The above values represent the percentage of electorate votes Bush is projected to receive on November 2nd. Now, this snapshot is uninteresting considering Bush has yet to fall under 50 since I've been tracking these values(there was a split-second drop, but for sake of my argument I'll handily forget about that).

However, the real fun comes in the trend, notably after the DNC wrapped up. Click the above link, then click the contract to see the lifetime trend. The pop-up is rather small, but you can certainly make up the massive jump from 50.0 to 54.2 in a 1 week time frame. The graph isn't quite as drastic as one would like, thanks to weak scaling, but the 'past week' graph demonstrates the increase rather well.

Suffice it to say, the market does not believe Kerry is the future POTUS, at least not at this point. What does this all mean? A little more than polling does, at least in my opinion. Take from it what you want, but the trend fits with reports that Kerry did not get any sort of bounce following the Edwards VP selection, nor the DNC Hoopla that bored its way to the worst ratings showing in history.

Dying To See A Doctor

2004-07-25T03:30:00.000Z

Here's a great read from Walter Williams over at townhall .

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

So, after getting a referral, patients are waiting an average of 4.5 months before being treated by a specialist. Not sure, but I think indigent patients in my part of the country can get an appt with a neurologist in less than 18 weeks. Certaily demonstrates how bad the Canuck system is.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

But, but, it's free. And really, this is the fault of the doctors, not the Canadian HealthCare system. If the doctors would work harder, and more doctors would graduate, then this sort of lag wouldn't occur. Which leads us to ...

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (http://www.canoe.ca/), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why doctors are leaving the Canadian system in droves? Could it be that they get screwed harder than a dirty Thai hooker?

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Making it illegal to opt out is about the only way to support such a corrupt and broken system. God help the US if our beloved policiticans cave into socialist demands for a system in the same vein as what Canada is cursed with.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.

I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.

Simple answer to this question: only the die-hard leftists, and even they would reject it once they themselves got sick.

Call Your Senator, US Generics Cheaper Than Canadian counterparts

2004-07-23T01:57:00.000Z

Isn't this interesting. Or, if you're a SNL fan, "isn't dat speshul"!

Some tidbits:

FDA analysts looked at the seven biggest-selling generic prescription drugs for chronic conditions that became available as generics in the United States since 1993....

For six of the seven drugs, the U.S. generics were priced lower than the brand-name versions in Canada . Five of the seven U.S. generic drugs were also cheaper than the Canadian generics. Of the remaining two U.S. generic drugs, one (enalapril) was unavailable in Canada generically, and its Canadian brand-name version was more than five times the price of the U.S. generic equivalent. The other U.S. generic (metformin) sold for less in Canada both as a generic and as a brand name. Metformin did not become available generically in the United States until January 2002, so U.S. generic prices have likely not fallen to the level they will eventually reach, say the FDA Office of Planning economists who did the study.

A limited sample to be sure, but quite helpful nonetheless when dealing with a "big pharma is destroying my budget" simpleton.

Advocates of legalizing imports of drugs from Canada and other countries have typically cited studies showing that brand-name drugs are much cheaper abroad than in the United States . These studies ignore how competition in the U.S. market lowers generic drug prices so they are lower than drug prices abroad, say FDA economists. U.S. generics have the same quality, safety, and strength as brand-name drugs, and they undergo the same rigorous review by the FDA before they are allowed on the market.

Advocates of reimportation ignore such things because it hurts their already weak argument.

Suffice it to say, Americans pay for access to the best drugs earlier than other countries. Is that worth the premium? Ask Canadians or other foreign citizens who are still awaiting escitalopram, geodon, etc. and instead are being subjected to desipramine for bipolar disorder. Americans pay for the most stringent safety standards. Is that worth the premium? Ask foreigners who have developed tardive dyskinesia from constant usage of thorazine in a country that did not label side effects or dosages correctly.

A premium is paid, for a short period of time before the market kicks in when a generic is developed, but ask yourself whether that premium is worth it. If you think your drugs cost too much, think of the costs involved with not getting those meds.

Rape Victims Forcing Rapists To Wear Condoms

2004-07-13T03:36:00.000Z

Flipping through the news for today, I ran across this little gem.

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to attend the week-long meeting, accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy.

She said the U.S. AIDS initiative requires that one-third of prevention funding go to "abstinence until marriage" programs.

"In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it's really inhumane," Lee said.

"Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms," she added.

I had to read the above segment 3 times before moving on. It's the sort of idiotic nonsense that really makes you wonder how these individuals end up as our representatives in government bodies.

"Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms"

Does this make any sense? If she's talking about rape, what are the chances that some rapist is going to stop midstream to put on a condom? If she's talking sexual abuse by family member, what are the odds said family member will stop midstream? Does Congresswoman Lee advocate women carrying rubbers in their pockets in the off-chance someone decides to pull them aside and rape them?

If she's not talking about some sort of forced intercourse, rape or otherwise, then how does she arrive @ "abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice"? I know quite a few females who are quite adamant about their CHOICE to not partake in sexual relations. Perhaps Ms. Lee understands something of which I am unaware with regards to women not having a choice when it comes to sexual intercourse.

Quick comment on the rest of the article: Of course abstinence is the most effective way to reduce HIV transmission. Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to sell condoms. Are kids likely to remain abstinent, probably not. This does not mean programs should give up teaching abstinence in favor of the 'We know you're gonna fukk, so take a box of condoms and be safe' mantra so pervasive during the 90s. Uganda has the correct order: A(bstinence), B(eing Faithful), and C(ondoms). Even a toddler could understand the importance of that order.

Health Care A Right?

2004-07-10T19:49:00.000Z

Over @ Balloon-Juice is a post regarding recent trends by physicians to deny non-emergency care to trial lawyers and others associated with medical malpractice suits. Since health care is not a human right, doctors are correct in deciding not to treat lawyers. Even if this trend were to catch on, my opinion is that enough physicians would exist to still care for those previously refused care.

Some interesting reading on the subject, see here, here, and here.

I'd be interested in logical reasons for including health care is a 'right', eventhough it is not found in the Constitution and actually steps on the rights of health care providers if invoked. Please comment.

Cheney MD A Pill Popper

2004-07-07T01:11:00.000Z

Now this is the sort of stuff I love to read about physicians.

Vice President Dick Cheney's personal doctor, who four years ago declared Mr. Cheney "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" despite a history of heart disease, was battling an addiction to prescription drugs at the time and has recently been dropped from the vice president's medical team, according to officials at the hospital where he practiced.

The doctor, Gary Malakoff of George Washington University Medical Center, had treated Mr. Cheney since 1995 and been a prominent spokesman on the vice president's health. He also reviewed the medical records of Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, but did not see Mr. Gore as a patient.

So we have a physician self-medicating. Hardly newsworthy, except that this man treats the VP of the United States, and stated a few years ago that even with heart problems, Cheney was fit for an arguably stressful position.

Hospital officials said Sunday that they had known since 1999 of Dr. Malakoff's problem, and that Dr. Malakoff informed the vice president at that time or in 2000. But he was permitted to continue working, they said, while undergoing treatment and monitoring, including urine tests, by an independent board.

Interesting. The hospital had known said physician was an addict self-medicating, and instead of throwing his ass out he was treated. Now, I'm all for treating addicts as that is 10000x better than throwing them in prison. However, allowing an physician to continue to practice whilst undergoing treatment for addiction appears rather stupid. I mean hell, the guy didn't even lose his spot as director of general internal medicine @ George Washington.

But in May, when the board concluded that Dr. Malakoff was too impaired to care for patients, he was relieved of his position as director of the medical center's general internal medicine division, they said. He is on leave until September, and could not be reached Sunday for comment.

How did they finally come to that conlcusion? Did he happen to undergo withdrawal symptoms while taking an H&P? Maybe he stole some samples destined for an elderly ICU patient? Maybe he simply pissed off his nurse who decided to stop covering for his ass. We'll likely never know.

The point is that, while not completely rampant within the profession, this occurs more often than it should. I'm not just referring to doctors self-medicating, but administrators and nurses covering for said physician. Sort of difficult to help others if you're on cloud9 thanks to a stash of diazepam. Hell, this guy was high profile and kept his job 5 years after everyone knew of his problem. Imagine what a no-name physician in a rural area can get away with.

Are People Really This Stupid?

2004-07-07T00:39:00.000Z

According to the following, the US of A needs a helping hand in ensuring democracy reigns within our borders. Read the article, then decide what party you believe the 9 representatives are from. Here's a hint, their party affiliation is never mentioned once within the article.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news - web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.

"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.

Demonstrating How Stupid Some Leftists Are: Priceless

2004-06-29T00:28:00.000Z

Via PoorandStupid.com, we have another account of stiffling of dissent in American schools

She then stated that while she could see that I had strong political convictions and that a small group of students would understand the signs, most of them were "rednecks" that wouldn't get the meaning and would only laugh at the mocking of Arabs.

Does the hypocrisy ever end? "Rednecks?" A sign can't have the word "Arab", which isn't a racial slur, but she can say "rednecks"?

Her response: "It isn't a racial slur, it's honesty!" Even though they both start with 'h' and end in 'y', "hypocrisy" does not equal "honesty". In fact, hypocrisy is a form of intellectual dis-honesty.

Priceless.

Delicious Malpractice Links

2004-06-29T00:13:00.000Z

Just readit all.

More here.

More Bad Doctors

2004-06-28T23:50:00.000Z

Over here is an interesting post about doctors taking larger sums of money from pharmaceutical companies, with the comment that:

So, this leaves me in a fix. I can either throw out the argument that conflict-of-interest doesn't necessarily mean harm to patients, or I can wait for new evidence that it does. Maybe I can conduct one of those corporate pseudo-studies to find out.

Or maybe all the proof I need is already out there -- written on a sheet of paper marked "Schedule A."

First off, I would state that there is, as of yet, little evidence that such practices harm patients (at least that I have come across).

Secondly, it takes two to tango, which physicians always seem to forget (it's called Ego and Narcissism, something inherent in most with the MD moniker). There would be no financial benefit for said companies to write these checks if there were not WILLING and UNETHICAL physicians willing to cash those checks. Period. Start @ the source: the doctors. If all doctors stopped accepting such bribes, guess what, the bribes would stop. Now, we could argue that the pharm companies would simply try to spend that money elsewhere (advertising, cruises, etc), but that's neither here nor there. If physicians were ethical, all of the time, the companies would have no choice but to spend the money on free samples and crappy commercials.

Please stop blaming the drug companies, they save more lives than physicians do.

Some Questions

2004-06-28T23:38:00.000Z

I couldn't help myself.

The director and author will attempt to save as many lives as he can by simply intervening with his camera crew during the course of 90 minutes of filming. He hopes to embarrass health insurance companies and hospitals into continuing to care for patients with no cover - highlighting holes in the American system...

Moore said he had the idea when making his TV show, The Awful Truth, shown in Britain on Channel 4. 'We had this guy who was going to die because his HMO [insurers] wouldn't pay for his transplant so we went with him and conducted a funeral rehearsal,' said Moore. 'The HMO was ashamed and paid for the transplant and he lives to this day.'

While this is all fine and dandy, who will pay for this stunt? Listen, as physicians we are to help anyone and everyone we can. In a perfect world, this would occur. But not even in the so-called perfect socialized medical world does everyone needing a certain procedure get what is required.

I'd be interested in knowing why the HMO in Moore's anecdote declined the transplant coverage in the first place (did the individual know there was no such coverage offered, yet still signed up for the HMO; was the individual a heavy drinker who should not have been placed on the organ list anyways; etc). I'd also be interested in knowing what sort of transplant it was, and just how long 1) he might have lived without the transplant, and 2) how long he will live with the transplant.

Lastly, I'd be interested in knowing how the HMO made up for the revenue shortfall that obviously occurred from taking on said procedure. Did they refuse to sign up 100 more low-income accounts? Did they cut back on some drug services in their formulary? Did they lay off 100 people? Who knows, the article doesn't say. It might be interesting to know though just what Michael Moore was able to pull off with his sleazy camera stunts, besides getting a transplant for someone. Maybe the DVD-version will have a footnote stating that only 50 money hungry republicans lost their jobs in exchange.

HRT Not Bad; Researchers Inept

2004-06-28T23:15:00.000Z

From this post over @ Medpundit we see what happens when study protocols are not followed correctly, and we reiterate what happens when statistics are used to promote an agenda as opposed to find answers to scientific questions. Well done guys, well done.

12 Week Old Fetus Walks

2004-06-28T23:10:00.000Z

Anyone think this might change a few minds in the pro-life/pro-abortion debate? Ideally, yes. Realistically, no. Speaks volumes for where our society currently resides.

RIP Mattie Stepanek, 1990-2004

2004-06-23T04:02:00.000Z

The NYTimes has the story here.

Mattie J. T. Stepanek, who published five volumes of poetry and became an advocate for people with muscular dystrophy, died yesterday in Washington. He was 13 and lived in Rockville, Md.

The cause was complications of the disease, the Muscular Dystrophy Association announced. Mattie was the association's national good-will ambassador from 2002 through 2004.

Mattie had dysautonomic mitochondrial myopathy, a genetic neuromuscular disease that impaired almost all of his body's major functions, like heart rate, breathing, blood pressure and digestion, and caused muscle weakness. His mother, Jeni Stepanek, 44, has the adult-onset form of the disease, and his three older siblings died of the disease in early childhood.

Mattie began writing poetry at 3 to cope with the death of a brother. In 2001, a small Virginia publisher issued a slim volume of his poems, called "Heartsongs." Within weeks, the book was on the New York Times best-seller list, and he soon appeared on Oprah Winfrey's talk show and on "Good Morning America."

Mattie wrote four other books: "Journey Through Heartsongs," "Hope Through Heartsongs," "Celebrate Through Heartsongs" and "Loving Through Heartsongs."

A true treasure to those fortunate to hear him talk, read his words, or feel his youthful enthusiasm.

God Bless his family.

Moore In It For The Money

2004-06-22T23:37:00.000Z

Like that's a big surprise. But seriously, this article here seals the deal.

"I hope the R rating doesn't have a large impact on the box office," Ortenberg said. "I've spoken with many parents, including some on the appeals board, who absolutely said they are going to take their children to see the film. We'll just have to hope the teenagers we're encouraging to see this picture find their way in through parents or adult guardians."

IFC Entertainment President Jonathan Sehring disagreed with the MPAA's ruling, adding: "But we do respect the process and appreciate that the MPAA listened with open minds to our appeal."

"As anyone who has read a paper, watched TV, surfed the web or chatted by a water cooler this week can attest, the interest in `Fahrenheit 9/11' has grown to mammoth proportions," Sehring went on. "It is a shame that `Fahrenheit 9/11' will become inaccessible to a segment of the American population to whom this film has a great deal of relevance."

Are you kidding me?! "...segment of the American population to whom this film has a great deal of relevance"?! Tell me, what exactly do 12 year olds know about this film? What do they know about the current war in the Middle East, the WOT? Hell, what do they even know about their own cities?

This entire facade, from the pseudo-disney scandal to some dipsh!t claiming the youngin's are missing out, demonstrates once and for all what drives Moore and his handlers: money.

Tiger Woods

2004-06-20T21:19:00.000Z

Alright, so Tiger makes birdie on his 72nd hole of the 104th US Open. What's the first thing Dickhead Miller and the rest of the crowing crew talk about? His 'major drought'. Are you sh!tting me?! There was only one person (Costas I believe) who was intellectually honest enough to say that Nicklaus went 12 majors without winning. Everyone else continues to talk about how his swing has left him, he can't putt, etc.

Charles Barkley said it best a few days ago on ESPN radio with Dan Patrick, "Just ignore them."

Exactly!

Johnny Miller: 25 tournaments wins, including 2 majors
Tiger Woods: 54 tournaments wins, 8 majors

Tiger is 28 years old. Johnny Miller was 46 when he won his last tourney. If Tiger wins just three tourneys a year until he's 46, he'll have won four times as many as did Johnny.

He's already won four times as many majors.

America's Poor Not So Poor?

2004-06-14T04:46:00.000Z

From Econopundit we have this interesting post.

Gist

In all of Europe there are only four countries in which the average household member's living space is greater than that of his counterpart in the poorest of US families.

If the EU were a US State, says the study, it would be right down there with the poorest of the poor.

What more can I say?

Moore Problems

2004-06-14T04:30:00.000Z

It's no secret I hate Michael Moore. He's a douche that makes money doing something a 5 year old could do. Well, this sort of stuff doesn't help.

Filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday he wasn't sure he did the right thing by saving footage of U.S. American soldiers' cruelty toward Iraqis for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11,'' instead of releasing the evidence earlier when it might have helped halt such abuse.

"I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it,'' Moore said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision.''

Guess what douchebag, that 'evidence' had already been turned over to the Pentagon before you shot your little 'documentary'. In fact, since the story 'broke' in May, and you had it months before, I'm going to assume you got footage after January, which happens to be when the Pentagon was investigating what was going on. Stop attempting to publicize your fictional documentary.

Lest we forget, he's a media darling of the left. Want proof? Try:

The film, which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival last month, became the center of a corporate spat between Disney and its subsidiary Miramax when Disney Chairman Michael Eisner said he wouldn't allow the film to be distributed. Later, Disney sold the film to Miramax co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The film is now being distributed by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, the latter specifically set up by the Weinsteins to handle Moore's documentary.

See the timeline? Notice that the 'corporate spat' with Disney came after he won the dubious Palm D'Or? Guess what folks, Moore has known for over a YEAR that his film would not be distributed by Disney. He merely used this non-subtle ruse to stir up yet more free publicity for his hit piece on Bush.

Wow, such amazing character. Can't wait to read the lies contained within this POS movie. We all now how fun it was reading his lies in Bowling For Columbine.

Anti-Chomsky blog?!?!?! I've Died and Gone To Heaven!!

2004-06-08T23:13:00.000Z

That's right folks. diary of an anti-chomskyite

Bookmark it. Read it. Send it to your friends.

Here's just a small taste of what is in store:

One of the primary attributes of the Chomskyite has always been hypocrisy. One who condemns from on high, after all, should not be expected to have to mingle with the proles in the course of their denunciations. This only underlines my belief that any populist rhetoric on the part of the Chomskyites is most certainly of the pseudo variety. They are, in truth, absolute and uncompromising elitists. What they are after is not an egalitarian Utopia but a dictatorship of the intellectuals.

Be still my heart.

Sex == $50,000

2004-06-07T22:50:00.000Z

Prostitutes are rich. Well, not exactly, but close.(subscription required)

Mr. Blanchflower calculates that going from having sex once a month to having it at least weekly is roughly equivalent to the amount of happiness that an extra $50,000 of income would bring to the average American. "The effect of sex on happiness is statistically well-determined ... and large," the authors conclude. "This is true for males and females, and for those under and over the age of 40."

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it; preferably after sex once weekly.

RIP

2004-06-07T18:43:00.000Z

There's nothing I can add that won't echo what has already been said. In fact, go to BrothersJudd for an exhaustive tribute to this man.

On another note, as I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning she played a short clip of Reagan speaking the following (he attributed the statements to Lincoln, which apparently many do; apparently the correct source is Reverend William J. H. Boetcke)

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

"You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

"You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

"You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

"You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

"You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

"You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

"You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

Damn, if ever something supported the Republican way of thinking against the Democratic way of thinking, this might just be it.

Americans Will Pay

2004-06-07T12:41:00.000Z

CodeBlueBlog has an interesting scoop over the NYTimes. It's not the scoop that drew me in as much as the author's conclusions.

The Times immediately starts worrying about the strain of the costs of these new drugs on the "health care system" – adding, I suppose to the ever-present, ever-worsening, health care crisis. Who is going to pay for these drugs?

I will.

This is the perfect answer for every American to give. Read the rest of the post, along with the apt comparison of a family paying out the nose for the best legal advice to help prevent their child from being incarcerated.

Who will pay? I will.

More New Jobs? Under Bush?!?!?

2004-06-04T14:39:00.000Z

Well, well, well, what do we have here.

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added almost a quarter million workers in May, extending a nine-month hiring spree and accommodating enough new jobseekers to hold the unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

I detest economics being attributed to presidential administrations, but since this is an election, when in Rome...

Regarding growth over the last 3 months, not bad. Since many anti-Bush cheerleaders were counting on the 'worst job growth since the depression' mantra to push Lurch over the edge, Kerry might have to formulate some plans that do not include retracting the Bush tax cuts. There's still work to be done, especially as more and more people start to get back into the workforce, but good none-the-less.

Nevertheless, the snapshot of America's employment situation in May met the expectations of most private analysts and fueled anticipation of an increase in interest rates when the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) meets at the end of this month. The Fed's main interest rate has been at a 46-year low of 1 percent, but analysts expect that to end with the jobs market steadily gaining steam.

Good and bad here. The Fed will wait for a true sustainable picture to develop before announcing a rate increase. And in my opinion, the rate increase will be rather weak, possibly 25-50 basis points. The markets are factoring in something a little higher, but that gives them more upside if the Fed comes in lower. Greenspan was just reappointed by Bush Jr, and one has to think he has the 1992 election in the back of Greenspan rallies the troops to support his viewpoint. Still think the increase is a little while off.

Hiring last month was widespread....The struggling manufacturing sector also is reawakening, adding 32,000 new jobs last month. It was the fourth straight month of payroll increases after almost three years of continuous losses.

Always nice to see broad growth, and it even includes the dreaded manufacturing sector. I understand that sector is important to the Midwest, but seriously, how long before it becomes a lost cause in this country?

Still, the economy is far from the booming 1990s. Last month, 8.2 million people remained unemployed. While the overall jobless rate stayed at 5.6 percent, it was much higher among blacks, at 9.9 percent and Hispanics, at 7 percent.

There it is, the negative side. Read that paragraph, a few times if necessary. See the problem with this author's (and many American's logic)? He's comparing 2004 to the colossal bubble years of the late 90s? That's incredibly stupid, and yet it persists all over the place. (come to expect this from atrios though)

Want a good comparison, try the historical average. You'll see that we're right where we want to be.

The report "is welcome news for American workers who are enduring the most prolonged jobs slump since the 1930s," said Rep. Pete Stark of California, the top Democrat on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. "But we still have a jobs deficit, and most of the economic growth we have seen has fattened businesses' balance sheets, not workers' paychecks."

Must be an election year. I guess the concept of businesses increasing capital, cash, etc. in order to then REINVEST in company operations, employment, etc. is too complex for Stark to understand. Go figure, he's only the head of the JEC. Sad.

Anyone know of a business that once it gets back into the black, immediately increases it's bottom line with new capital and employees? Please let me know so that I can SHORT their stock.

All in all, not a bad report. Not quite as strong as previous months, but expect it to be revised upwards, just as March and April were.

Turns OutSourcing Is Beneficial

2004-06-04T03:31:00.000Z

As anyone with a single ounce of common sense, and possibly a background in economics understands, outsourcing was never a detriment to our country (regardless of what idiotarians said). And now, here's the report.

Read Man Without Qualities for some highlights.

Sure, Re-importation Is A Great Idea

2004-06-02T22:33:00.000Z

Good Lord.

The Bush administration, once adamantly opposed to less expensive Canadian drugs, is softening its stance. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said he fully expects Congress to approve re-importation and added that he will encourage the President Bush not to oppose the legislation.

That's right folks, not content to sit by and watch those dern Canadians get cheaper drugs than our own seniors, the Bush administration has decided to jump on the re-importation bandwagon.

Let's amend the constitution so that no new laws can be enacted during an election year. Of course that would never happen, but it might help cut down on the sort of pandering the Bush administration is doing with this new stance.

Doesn't the Bush administration have an economic team? Hell, doesn't Bush himself have an MBA from Harvard? Does no one understand the implications of allowing re-importation of drugs from Canada? Let's review:

1. Canadian Gov't gets deals on drugs from American pharmaceutical companies based on negotiating (accepting a cheaper, outdated version of a drug available to Americans).

2. Americans piss and moan about paying more for a superior product, so the Bush admin. panders and decide that it's ok to allow re-importation.

3. Entrepreneurs notice an opportunity to make money --> setup shop and start re-importing drugs to the states.

4. Demand for re-imported drugs rises; supply goes down. Hmm....I guess that means prices go up, not to mention the little extra tacked on by the middle-man running the re-importation company.

5. Pharmaceutical companies in the US realize their margins are down, so less money is pumped into research; fewer new drugs come out; investors lose faith in the industry and stock prices fall.

6. Drugs become more expensive both in the US and Canada, with Canadians eventually paying more in taxes for their 'free healthcare'.

7. Moron 'activists' claim victory by simultaneously hurting 'Big Pharm', creating a middle-man market where one didn't exist before, and successfully keeping drug prices right where they were before.

8. Healthcare based on drug treatment takes a hit as the incentive to produce new drugs disappears. Lawyers make a fortune on lawsuits due to counterfeit drugs.

Seriously, does it take a rocket scientist to understand this entire thing is a bad idea? Let the market work itself out you retarded monkeys. And to those who say drugs cost too much here in the states, think about the cost of not having those drugs, or the cost of future drugs being fewer and far between.

Suffice it to say, 'Big Pharm' is not the problem here. The problem is those who somehow think they are entitled to the best healthcare and drug treatment on the planet, without having to pay for it.

Getting It Wrong For Over 65 Years

2004-06-02T05:14:00.000Z

From the January/February Issue of Men's Health:

The problem with television is that the people must sit and keep their eyes glued to a screen: the average American family hasn't time for it

That's right, the ol' lady getting it wrong for over 65 years. Chalk it up to experience I guess. Next time the NY Times calls looking for a renewal, remember how much good that money could do in the hands of United Way, or even some local hospital fund.

BTW, the inspiration for this came from multiple sites that linked the latest mea culpa from the op-ed page.

IT'S OVER!!!!!! #$)(@#$(&@#$

2004-05-25T20:52:00.000Z

[insert DeanScream here]

You know, there's something about taking a 7 hour test that is absolutely draining. And there's something about taking a 7 hour test where a large percentage of one's answers are predicated on undereducated guesses that is especially demoralizing. I KNOW I had more medical knowledge than was demonstrated on that little cross-sectional exam.

Lord how I hate standardized tests. Damn luck of the draw.

Still, good luck to everyone else still studying for their big day.

One Day For The Rest Of Your Life

2004-05-24T12:56:00.000Z

At least, that's how it feels sometimes. With all the pressure put on us by our school to maintain a high Step1 class average, it's easy to forget that Pass == MD. I'm sure it's the same everywhere else, and so as I prepare to take a test that has consumed the past 5-6 weeks of my life, I want to wish everyone else the best of luck.

I'll be taking a vacation immediately after the test is over, but should be back blogging in a week or so. Check the blogroll to the side for some good reading.

Again, best of luck to everyone on USMLE Step1.

"That girl is standing right over there and you're talking about our backdoors?"

2004-05-20T14:21:00.000Z

"Mr. Potato Head! Mr. Potato Head! Backdoors are NOT secrets!!"

Well, not anymore.

Really? No Link Between Autism and Vaccines?

2004-05-20T04:08:00.000Z

I'm shocked.

Well, not really. This has been known for quite some time, with only a few money-hungry lawyers and their disturbingly underinformed clients attempting to say otherwise. Glad we can finally put this to rest.

If you want more reading on the subject, check here.

Back to studying.

RE: US Olympic Athletes; NO CELEBRATING!!

2004-05-17T14:23:00.000Z

Well, what do we have here .

Looks like a load of crap, especially:

American athletes have been warned not to wave the U.S. flag during their medal celebrations at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country's already-battered public image.

.........

"What I am telling the athletes is, 'Don't run over and grab a flag and take it round the track with you.' It's not business as usual for American athletes. If a Kenyan or a Russian grabs their national flag and runs round the track or holds it high over their heads, it might not be viewed as confrontational. Where we are in the world right now, an American athlete doing that might be viewed in another manner."

It goes on to say that the Brits aren't going so far as to ban their athletes from celebrating in whatever manner said athletes might see fit, although anti-British feelings might be stirring in Athens.

This is retarded. If an American wins a gold medal, he has to apologize to his competitors for beating them. If any other country wins, there's an instant parade (two parades if he beats an American competitor).

Are we really this weak? Is America really the lame-ass high-schooler worried about what her friends think? Do we really need to apologize for winning Olympic gold? What next, apologizing for running the world's economy? I can see it now, President Bush in the Rose Garden explaining our plans to give all our companies away in a bid to get Europeans to like us again.

For all this talk of anti-Americanism and the like, I still have yet to see countries, investors, etc. pull their support of our markets, our companies, our ingenuity, etc. In fact, if everyone hates us so much, why are we still running things from our little plot of land between Pacific and Atlantic? Why, if we are so unliked, does our economy continue to grow with a large influx of FOREIGN dollars? Well, it likely has to do with something called jealousy. You see, foreigners aren't stupid (unless they're being interviewed for a story by Le Monde). Foreigners understand how to make money, and they know it's not in their home countries, it's over here. When said investors stop investing in America, then we can talk about anti-Americanism and the danger it poses.

Stifling celebration so as not to 'upset' the losers on the other side of the Atlantic is immature. We have a right to celebrate winning, and they have a right to deplore losing.

Go America!!!!

UPDATE: Arguably the best in the business

Pfizer Paying The Price

2004-05-13T14:27:00.000Z

A funny thing happened one day during an ethics discussion. I took the side of a pharmaceutical company, whilst all others scorned and snarked. And now this from the WSJ:

A unit of Pfizer Inc. has agreed to plead guilty to criminal wrongdoing, and the pharmaceuticals giant will pay about $430 million in fines in a settlement that will end federal and state investigations into the marketing of the blockbuster drug Neurontin, according to people familiar with the matter.

The agreement, which could be announced as early as this week, represents one of the largest Medicaid-fraud settlements. Medicaid is the federal-and-state program that provides health-care coverage for low-income Americans.

..........

[D]octors have grown accustomed to prescribing it for an array of unapproved, or off-label uses, including migraines, mental illness and a variety of pain conditions. More than 90% of Neurontin prescriptions are off-label, according to recent studies.

Once a drug is approved by the FDA, doctors are allowed to prescribe it any way they see fit. However, a drug maker can market the medication only for the approved use. Getting FDA approvals to market a drug for additional maladies involves costly and time-consuming clinical trials.

.........

Mr. Franklin said Parke-Davis deliberately set out to market the drug to doctors for off-label uses. Parke-Davis used a variety of inducements to get doctors to prescribe Neurontin off-label, including tickets to the Olympics, trips to Disney World and retreats to golf resorts with their families, Mr. Franklin charged.

Mr. Franklin alleged there was little scientific basis for much of the off-label use and that company sales and medical personnel presented a distorted picture of the drug's effectiveness when talking to doctors. In the case of Neurontin for migraines, for instance, Mr. Franklin said the company suppressed the results of a study that found no difference between Neurontin and a placebo in treating the condition. Nonetheless, sales personnel continued promoting the drug for that use, he said.

Pfizer is certainly in the wrong here, but I would argue that said physicians are also to blame. What physician grabs the info sheet from the drug rep, takes his word that said drug is great for off-label use treating migraines, and then starts prescribing it without locating supporting research? I'm the first to scoff @ 'evidence-based' medicine when it compares the newest treatment to hardcore clinical wisdom, but what these physicians were doing is tantamount to prescribing St. John's Wort for treatment of bladder cancer.

Maybe I'm just naive at how things work outside a teaching hospital, but even so, this certainly puts a cloud over the profession with regards to how physicians go about treating patients.

Damnit, now I have to study. How depressing.

A Few Changes

2004-05-13T04:21:00.000Z

As you can see, studying got the best of me this evening. Not happy with how the previous layout looked (especially when viewed on multiple monitors with multiple resolution settings), I decided to go a different direction. Still using a standard template, but at least it doesn't look quite like a standard template.

Everything should've been ported, including the comment system. I removed OliverWillis from the links because if I wanted to read reactionary drivel, there's atrios and a million other blogs to visit.

Leave It To Kennedy

2004-05-12T23:41:00.000Z

Wow. Again, Wow. There's really nothing more to say about Kennedy except "Wow, what an amazingly stupid waste of space". The poster boy for AA and 'ultra-liberalism thanks to daddy's millions' has done it again.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, dismissed the Republican package as "a sham" and said it would do little to help the uninsured.

Six months of work, and his response amounts to a one word blip that any 5-year old could spout out? Not surprising. I guess the fact that Mass. continues to elect his happy-ass to the senate is a clear indication of how out of touch that portion of the country is with what's going on in the real world. Anyone know if the Canadian government accepted their application for annexation? I know a country that wouldn't blink at the idea.

Regarding the health plan ideas drawn up, they appear to be in a step in the right direction. Personally, I believe personal health accounts and tax breaks are the way to go. Carry major coverage for unforeseen stuff, and just pay for the rest out of your own tax-free pocket. If we attempt to head down the 'socialized' route that our brethren in Canada and the rest of Europe have traveled, we're screwed.

Human Nature

2004-05-12T22:48:00.000Z

I should be studying, but there's only so much path I can take before requiring a break. Quick recap:

1) pictures were taken and used for PsyOps in Iraq

2) military performed an investigation dating back almost 5 months ago

3) 60 Minutes II attempts to 'break' the 'story' for a ratings boost, similar to spending an entire hour reading the names of dead American soldiers after claiming "we didn't know it was sweeps week".

4) big fukking zoo surrounding the entire 'story', including yet more vehement cries against the Bush Administration, and even a petition for Rumsfeld's firing (i'd link it, but nah, too stupid)

5) Kerry makes stupid comment number #45924, detailed in previous post

6) islamofascists, who after capturing Berg more than 3 weeks ago, decide to cash in on the american media feeding frenzy and decapitate a jew

7) media becomes silent about the killing of a jew in such a horrific fashion by islamists, but have no problem leading with yet more pictures detailing 'torture' by our troops (as a sidenote, i wasn't aware that embarrassing the hell out of people was considered torture; i always thought the term referred more to poking out an eye with a red hot poker, but good ol Dan Rather and the rest of the Moron Crew taught me something new)

I think that's sufficient, at least for my purposes. After reading this over at isntapundit.com, I realized what many people simply do not. All of this crap, from the psyops to the 'outrage', is human nature. In fact, even the horrific murder of Mr. Berg is human nature. That's not the worst part though. What makes it bad is not that human nature would come through in spades during such times, but that individuals would attempt to assign moral relevancy to said actions.

What's my point? My point is the moral relevancy so rampant in the news, and in our culture, people actually think what is going on can be rationalized. Terrorists kill 3000 in 2001; moral relevancy says we deserved it for all we've done to the Middle East over the past 10, 100, 1000 years.

American soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan attempting to lay the first brick of a democratic region; moral relevancy says they all deserve to die for fighting a needless war (besides, they're all just babykillers anyways).

An American Jew gets decapitated, apparently in response to our mistreatment of Iraqi detainees [if you can logically come to that conclusion, even after knowing that Berg was kidnapped 3 weeks ago and the prison mistreatment was being investigated back in January, you are an idiot] but really more because 1) no reason was needed to kill him and 2) it provides great propaganda for the recruiting films, and what happens? Nothing. The story gets buried, or if it's mentioned, it is done in such poor taste as to place blame for the man's death with anyone but his murderers. Moral relevancy says Berg deserved to die because, after all, some soldiers did put female panties on the head of a prisoner in a psyop photo.

So how do we explain the same way in which Daniel Pearl was murdered a few year ago? Well, he deserved it because at the time, we were supporting Israel..or because we were funding [insert coup here]..or because [insert crackpot conspiracy theory here]. Unfortunately, someone will always be up to the task of playing this game. Human nature will produce tragedies, and individuals who believe they are above the fray will attempt to rationalize and invoke moral equivalence, regardless of how downright stupid they sound in the process.

And to all of you reading this (all 5 of you) who are saying "I would never take part in something like that", reread the link posted above. We are all capable, and we are all weak enough to do just what others before us have done.

USMLE sucks

2004-05-11T03:25:00.000Z

Btw, in case anyone didn't notice, posts here are a little light. Not because there isn't anything to write about, obviously there is [although most is 1) uninteresting or 2) being blogged to hell by everyone else]. Has more to do with Step 1. Taking it earlier than most, so unfortunately I have to study earlier than most.

The only reason I blogged today was because the post below containing Kerry's assinine questioning of Bush's 'right' to lead struck my damn ulnar nerve, and no one likes the feeling of striking the 'funny bone'.

Questioning Kerry's 'Right' To Speak

2004-05-11T03:16:00.000Z

As we see here, Kerry demonstrates once again why he's the last choice for POTUS.

Kerry also has questioned Bush's right to lead in the wake of the scandal.

Seriously?! Is this a typo?! Did Kerry actually call into question the 'right' of President Bush to 'lead in the wake of the scandal'? Methinks this 'nuanced' political player (translation: sub-70 iq cretin) should read up on the office of the POTUS, especially if he plans to inhabit it some day (Lord help us).

I'm shocked. Can't Massachussetts find anyone better than Mr. Theresa Heinz to bring Kennedy his daily keg of Heineken?

Why Does The ACLU Fear The Patriot Act?

2004-04-29T16:18:00.000Z

There's really nothing new in the Patriot Act, as it basically just clarified law that was already a part of our system. Personally, the only people who should be 'afraid' are those committing illegal acts. And even then, you're not likely to come under the radar of the Patriot Act. You'll notice that the civil complaints against the Patriot Act involve criminals who got caught, and subsequently attempt to use a 'technicality' in order to escape punishment.

Which brings me to my "what everyone in the world needs to work on" statement: taking responsibility for one's actions.

Gore Gives Money To Kerry As Opposed To Starving Kids

2004-04-29T15:56:00.000Z

Via Luskin we have this little tidbit regarding a $6 million donation by Gore to Kerry (technically it's to the Democratic Party, but you get the idea). It was leftover money from his unsuccessful bid in 2000.

"Under campaign finance rules, he could also have given the money to a charity."

Now, this is certainly legal. But is it conscionable? Gore stored up some TAXPAYER dollars, let it sit for a few years, and then decided to hand it over to Kerry in his bid for the presidency. Would I be upset if Gore was donating his OWN money? Of course not, that would be his free choice. However, when presented with two options, 1) giving TAXPAYER dollars to Kerry, or 2) giving TAXPAYER dollars to needy children, starving adults, or another worthy charity, Gore went with the former.

This is the compassionate party? The party of the underdog? Tell it to the kids at the Ronald McDonald house.

Can We Find Patriotism Once More?

2004-04-29T15:39:00.000Z

The following was sent to me by family, a veteran of Vietnam who provided honorable service (not to mention a few body parts) for the country he loves.

I was sitting alone in one of those loud, casual steak houses that you find all over the country. You know the type--a bucket of peanuts on every table, shells littering the floor, and a bunch of perky college kids racing around with longneck beers and sizzling platters.

Taking a sip of my iced tea, I studied the crowd over the rim of my glass. My gaze lingered on a group enjoying their meal. They wore no
uniform to identify their branch of service, but they were definitely "military:" clean shaven, cropped haircut, and that "squared away" look that comes with pride.

Smiling sadly, I glanced across my table to the empty seat where my husband usually sat. It had only been a few months since we sat in this very booth, talking about his upcoming deployment to the Middle East. That was when he made me promise to get a sitter for the kids, come back to this restaurant once a month and treat myself to a nice steak. In turn he would treasure the thought of me being here, thinking about him until he returned home to me.

I fingered the little flag pin I constantly wear and wondered where he was at this very moment. Was he safe and warm? Was his cold any better? Were my letters getting through to him? As I pondered these thoughts, high pitched female voices from the next booth broke into my thoughts.

"I don't know what Bush is thinking about. Invading Iraq. You'd think that man would learn from his old man's mistakes. Good lord. What an idiot! I can't believe he is even in office. You do know, he stole the election."

I cut into my steak and tried to ignore them, as they began an endless tirade running down our president. I thought about the last night I
spent with my husband, as he prepared to deploy. He had just returned from getting his smallpox and anthrax shots. The image of him standing in our kitchen packing his gas mask still gives me chills.

Once again the women's voices invaded my thoughts. "It is all about oil, you know. Our soldiers will go in and rape and steal all the oil they
can in the name of 'freedom'. Hmph! I wonder how many innocent people they'll kill without giving it a thought? It's pure greed, you know."

My chest tightened as I stared at my wedding ring. I could still see how handsome my husband looked in his "mess dress" the day he slipped it on my finger. I wondered what he was wearing now Probably his desert uniform, affectionately dubbed "coffee stains" with a heavy bulletproof vest over it.

"You know, we should just leave Iraq alone. I don't think they are hiding any weapons. In fact, I bet it's all a big act just to increase the
president's popularity. That's all it is, padding the military budget at the expense of our social security and education. And, you know what else? We're just asking for another 9-ll. I can't say when it happens again that we didn't deserve it."

Their words brought to mind the war protesters I had watched gathering outside our base. Did no one appreciate the sacrifice of brave men and women, who leave their homes and family to ensure our freedom? Do they even know what "freedom" is?

I glanced at the table where the young men were sitting, and saw their courageous faces change. They had stopped eating and looked at each other dejectedly, listening to the women talking.

"Well, I, for one, think it's just deplorable to invade Iraq, and I am certainly sick of our tax dollars going to train professional baby
killers we call a military."

Professional baby killers? I thought about what a wonderful father my husband is, and of how long it would be before he would see our children again.

That's it! Indignation rose up inside me. Normally reserved, pride in my husband gave me a brassy boldness I never realized I had. Tonight one voice will answer on behalf of our military, and let her pride in our troops be known.

Sliding out of my booth, I walked around to the adjoining booth and placed my hands flat on their table. Lowering myself to eye level with
them, I smilingly said, "I couldn't help overhearing your conversation.

You see, I'm sitting here trying to enjoy my dinner alone. And, do you know why? Because my husband, whom I love with all my heart, is halfway around the world defending your right to say rotten things about him."

"Yes, you have the right to your opinion, and what you think is none of my business. However, what you say in public is something else, and I will not sit by and listen to you ridicule MY country, MY president, MY husband, and all the other fine American men and women who put their lives on the line, just so you can have the "freedom" to complain. Freedom is an expensive commodity, ladies. Don't let your actions cheapen it."

I must have been louder that I meant to be, because the manager came over to inquire if everything was all right. "Yes, thank you," I replied. Then turning back to the women, I said, "Enjoy the rest of your meal."

As I returned to my booth applause broke out. I was embarrassed for making a scene, and went back to my half eaten steak. The women picked up their check and scurried away.

After finishing my meal, and while waiting for my check, the manager returned with a huge apple cobbler ala mode. "Compliments of those
soldiers," he said. He also smiled and said the ladies tried to pay for my dinner, but that another couple had beaten them to it. When I asked who, the manager said they had already left, but that the gentleman was a veteran, and wanted to take care of the wife of "one of our boys."

With a lump in my throat, I gratefully turned to the soldiers and thanked them for the cobbler. Grinning from ear to ear, they came over and surrounded the booth. "We just wanted to thank you, ma'am. You know we can't get into confrontations with civilians, so we appreciate what you did."

As I drove home, for the first time since my husband's deployment, I didn't feel quite so alone. My heart was filled with the warmth of the
other diners who stopped by my table, to relate how they, too, were proud of my husband, and would keep him in their prayers. I knew their flags would fly a little higher the next day.

Perhaps they would look for more tangible ways to show their pride in our country, and the military who protect her. And maybe, just maybe, the two women who were railing against our country, would pause for a minute to appreciate all the freedom America offers, and the price it pays to maintain it's freedom.

As for me, I have learned that one voice CAN make a difference. Maybe the next time protesters gather outside the gates of the base where I live, I will proudly stand on the opposite side with a sign of my own. It will simply say, "Thank You!"

*Lori Kimble is a 31 year old teacher and proud military wife. A California native, Mrs. Kimble currently lives in Alabama.

I'm not sure what to say to those who read this and feel nothing, except, God help you. Disagree with the war all you want, but remember that those men and women fighting for Iraqi freedom/WMDs/Oil, etc are still our American Brethren, and they deserve more than snide remarks about being 'baby killers' and 'mercenaries'. If you feel yourself still wanting to lash out, then use the following test to decide if what you want to say is appropriate:

1) would you say it to a friend?
2) would you say it to a family member?
3) would you say it to a Marine's face who has just returned from the Middle East after losing his best friend?

If you answer no to any or all of the above, the safe bet is to bury the thought and move onto something more productive.

Who Says Appeasement Doesn't Work?

2004-04-15T13:13:00.000Z

bin Laden is back and offering a truce to Europe.

"I announce a truce with the European countries that do not attack Muslim countries"

I'm sold. Let's move everyone out.

You mean Iraq still isn't rebuilt? Too bad, bin Laden wants us out.

We don't negotiate with terrorists? Well, this is too good to be true. We can't have bin Laden on us forever, so we'll negotiate (cough cough obey orders cough cough) just this one time, and it will never happen again.

Drink To Your Health

2004-04-13T16:17:00.000Z

This just in: Guinness can make you more healthy and more virile.

However, don't break out the six packs yet. In fact, the American Heart Association puts it as follows:

How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits further research, but right now the American Heart Association does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol to gain these potential benefits.

Got that folks? I know, I know, this hurts your plans of justifying your drinking habit under the guise of 'being healthy'. Too bad. The studies are still inconclusive, not to mention that there are many things out there that will give us protective effects, but those effects almost never outweigh the negatives involved with said treatment.

For those interested in why alcohol prevents clots, you can either google it, or just take my word that it poisons platelets. Cheers.

Clarke: Your 15 Minutes Are Up

2004-04-13T03:49:00.000Z

This speaks for itself. Dick, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Atkins Sucks

2004-04-12T21:21:00.000Z

I hate the 'new' Atkins craze, mainly because 1) it's far from 'new', 2) makes claims that are not backed up by current research and 3) the ads are simply annoying. But regarding research, the above 'study' is funny because there was a difference @ 6 months, but of course @ 1 year no difference existed. Did the Atkins people forget that? Probably came from the same guy that said Atkins gained 65 pounds from fluid resuscitation after his fall.

It's rather simple: consume less calories than burn and you will not gain weight. Where those calories come from are usually of little concern; as long as you burn them off they will not be stored as fat. Of course, if you are predisposed to heart disease, etc then eating high-fat diets is not a great idea (not a great idea for anyone considering atherosclerosis is a huge cause of hypertension). But the essential point is burn more than you consume.

As my girlfriend says, "I don't trust a diet where you can eat as much bacon and lard as you want, but fruits and veggies are considered off limits." Exactly.

Turning A Non-Issue Into A True Problem

2004-04-12T19:52:00.000Z

Econopundit, I respectfully disagree with your point that "people can be trusted to make correct judgments when given product information -- even when presented with the slick, manipulative, entertaining, well-packaged product information typical of television pharmaceuticals ad." Even outside of pharamaceuticals I would not have as much faith in the consumer as Econopundit does to make valid decisions given any amount of information (if advertising didn't work to the company's benefit, it wouldn't exist). In my limited experience thus far, the majority of patients really cannot handle this sort of decision. Hell, many cannot even handle taking doses correctly, let alone decide which anti-diuretic would be most beneficial. This is why MDs get the script pad, not patients. It's very dangerous to start thinking the patient can do more with less, especially since mortality and morbidity lay in the balance.

Back up....need a little background on this post....

An issue close to my heart happens to be 'ethics' in medicine. I put quotation around 'ethics' because as it is taught @ the medical school I currently attend, 'ethics' appears to have correct and incorrect answers (or "best choice" answers as they are lovingly referred to). I always thought ethics was a complex mix of values, norms, etc. Nope, here (and on USMLE1) it is as predetermined as the physiologic response to nicotine. In effect, it comes off as more black and white, rather than as 100 shades of gray.

Example: A case we were given stated that a 'supplement' company has offered to pay off your student loans and give you 10% of all scripts you write for their supplements. Do you sign on? Well, I caused quite a ruckus when I said "Hell yes". In fact, not only were the other students looking @ me like I was from Mars, but the resident ethicist simply scoffed and said "No sir, that would be very wrong". Not enjoying being wrong, I proceeded to explain why I would do it. It boils down to me signing a contract that does not require me to prescribe the supplement, nor provide any sort of reference at all to the company. If the company wants to pay off my bills and entice me with 10% sales revenue, I'm all for it. However, in no way does that bind me to actually prescribing the supplement (which I obviously wouldn't do because of the inherent conflict of interest present). In fact, to me it was merely a way to pay off my student loans without doing anything at all. The way the situation was presented, the company involved was stupid (and apparently so were my classmates who failed to see what a great deal this would actually be for them). Suffice it to say, everyone still looked at me like I had no morals, and was doomed to merely 'scribing those drugs that I got after some free pens and dinners came my way. After a few minutes the ethicist finally realized that the situation, as presented, was deeply flawed and that I 'had a point'. Of course I did, I'm a finance/economics student. Hell, anyone with common sense would agree.

So why didn't the other students jump @ the same opportunity? I blame it on 1) not being very good in business (relates to having little common sense compared to the average american, a sad commentary on those currently in medical school) and 2) this inherent fear that whatever outside companies (i.e. Big Pharm, Insurance, etc) do within the medical field is inherently bad. Just look @ how students/doctors have shunned the historically common practice of Big Pharm sending students/doctors on trips, paying for dinners, etc. in exchange for listening to information regarding Drug A. My question is, when did this become so taboo?

Probably about the same time someone started complaining that drugs cost too much, and look, part of that cost comes from sending doctors on vacations to learn about the latest anti-depressant or ACE inhibitor. Solution == stop courting doctors and the drug costs will go down. Anyone think that worked? If you said 'yes', grab your dunce cap and visit the nearest corner for a few minutes (then come back and continue reading). In fact, in my opinion, the 'problem' that individuals were attempting to 'rectify' has actually now become a legitimate problem.

First off, Big Pharm still visits doctors. Dinners are still paid for, and trips are still paid for. It's not as open as it used to be, nor as commonplace, but it still occurs. So, the original 'problem' that needed solving still exists. Well done guys.

Secondly, Big Pharm has moved on to providing tons of free samples for their doctors in lieu of trips/dinners/hookers. Personally, I think that's a wonderful idea, and support it completely. Incidentally, the ONLY plus that came out of the incessant whining regarding Big Pharm exerting too much influence over physicians.

So if I agree with the above, where are the problems? Well they are two fold. First is the objection that doctors are 'bought'. This seems rather ludicrous to me, even after reading some research on behavior patterns associated with Big Pharm influence (see here, and here.). I know I have yet to enter the fray, but with family in the business (both med and pharm), I can see how doctors are not influenced, simply smart enough to realize a free ride. I know the studies show otherwise, and of course Big Pharm wouldn't continue to do this if it did not produce results, but to me that more readily demonstrates an inability by physicians to separate 1) business from 2) patient health/well-being and 3) advertising/sales pitches. Being a field that prides itself on 'correctness' (even to the point of keeping people alive that would be better served by death), I don't expect many physicians to admit this to themselves, let alone outsiders.

The other problem is that due to market forces being what they are, Big Pharm must still get their name and their drugs out. What does this mean? Well, instead of sales people visiting physicians, individuals who understand pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, SE, contraindications, etc., Big Pharm is now selling directly to the public. EEEGAADS!!! Talk about turning a non-issue into a large cluster f--k. Anyone who took a glance @ the superbowl saw a multitude of ads for 3 different ED drugs. Want to bet on how many men proceeded to call their doctors asking about their favorite PDE-5 inhibitor?

Talk about a bad dream. From non-issue to patients requesting name-brand drugs. The internet has done wonders for patients attempting to diagnose themselves (often to their detriment since 1) they are wrong and 2) cause increased anxiety in the process). We now have the second installment, whereby not only can a patient diagnose himself, but he can request the 'right' treatment for his condition based on a 30-second, obtuse collage of muzak and smiling faces. That's bass ackwards, even to an uneducated grunt like myself. Wonder how long this cycle will take to play itself out. I'm hoping sooner rather than later, but that probably means the exact opposite will occur.

Does the first paragraph make some sense now?

Record Use of "RECORD GAS PRICE" Rhetoric

2004-04-12T17:47:00.000Z

Have you heard this one lately, whether on NPR (Bob Edwards being the notorious bewb that he is), your daily paper, CNN, Fox, etc? It appears to be the meme du jour around the blogosphere as well. Well, I'm tired of it. For those who are inclined, check this out.

Fun facts: in 1960, gas was 31 cents a gallon (regular, leaded), but in today's dollars, that would be $1.95. In 1980, it was $1.25 (unleaded, regular), or $2.82 in $2004. 1990, $1.16, or $1.65 today. The latest average is $1.72. There has also been a significant increase in miles per gallon. So cost per mile is lower on that account. If you're one of those enviro wackos, you don't want lower gas prices.

Did you get that? When adjusted for inflation, which anyone not attempting to make a complete fool of himself should do, we are nowhere near 'record' price levels. Absolute prices mean jack crap. Next time you hear someone use this, kick him/her in the shin (figuratively, of course). You might also want to mention that increased regulation, increased additives, less refining capacity, increased demand, etc are all placing upward pressure on the price of gas, not just the high price of oil.

And as with most stats, it's probably best to make comparisons against historical averages, something this notorious bewb should certainly consider doing, especially given his profession. More here.

Thanks to Econopundit for the pointer.

Have some fun with prices: Inflation Calculator

UPDATE: For those of you visual learners, try this on for size:

UPDATE2: Image removed for size purposes.

Health Insurance Same As Car Insurance?

2004-04-12T16:17:00.000Z

Over @ Medpundit is a post throwing out the idea of requiring individuals to buy their own health insurance, much like car insurance. While an interesting idea, and one I agree should be included in the growing debate concerning the future of our healthcare system, I can say there is one huge problem.

Many people, even if required by law to purchase health care insurance, will not purchase it. Period.

And for those living in states where a larger percentage of the population chooses not to purchase the required coverage will get stuck covering the bill. Anyone who lives in a state with high car insurance rates understands what I am talking about. Regardless of the reason (ie. higher illegal immigrant/per capita, low wages, etc) [Illegal immigrant? How about 'undocumented'? It's against the law, therefore ILLEGAL. I hate PC pandering. Call a spade a spade.] there will oftentimes be people who refuse to comply with these laws, only serving to increase costs for those who do comply.

Do I think there are problems with the current tie-in between employment and healthcare? Sure, but that's only because nothing is perfect. I think that we should seriously consider tax breaks to small businesses that offer healthcare coverage; we should support HSAs; and we should work to reduce frivolous lawsuits that 1) serve to drive up malpractice costs and 2) drive up hospital costs due to physicians ordering tests NOT NEEDED FOR DIAGNOSIS, simply so said physician is protected against a slimeball lawyer asking "why didn't you order this PET scan since you knew our patient had a headache?"

However, I do not agree that removing this incentive/benefit and forcing people to purchase their own insurance (I prefer using HSAs and Major Medical Coverage) will help since those who cannot afford insurance will continue to ride on the backs of those who can. In essence, the system will not be any different from what we have currently.

Tort Reform? Anyone?

2004-04-11T15:22:00.000Z

If this was an isolated incident of lawyers (and unprincipled doctors) making an undeserved buck, I might not be so concerned. However, this is a concerning trend (i.e. tobacco, medical malpractice, medical sexual assault, fast food companies, etc) quickly getting out of control.

For asbestosis, the diagnosis can be rather difficult. In fact, relying on pulmonary function tests and a simple chest film seems rather stupid in regards to making a true diagnosis. Go here for a quick rundown of the disease process, etc. Having said that, it's rather ridiculous that so many claims were rubberstamped through the system before someone finally said something. Go figure though, those 'big bad businesses' have endless amounts of cash to spend on litigation, even if the litigants are bringing false cases.

This highlights a severe problem in the realm of tort law, one that needs to be seriously reviewed and tended to before it spirals even more out of control. I agree that people need to be protected, but consumers must understand that the costs for frivolous lawsuits are not paid by the companies, but by the consumers in the form of higher costs.

Final Note: Just to get this point out there, I completely disagree with the judgment against the tobacco industry. There were warnings. People ignored those warnings, got cancer, then decided it wasn't their fault they got sick. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. Just like some obese patient coming in saying "Mcdonalds has too much fat and it's making me unhealthy" doesn't sit well with me. We all make choices, and we all must live with them. Passing the buck to some company is irresponsible.

Thanks to Medpundit for the link.

Constructive Criticism Serves A Purpose

2004-04-08T17:25:00.000Z

In responding to this post, I boiled things down to a childish rant where nothing of substance was provided. Your opinion may differ of course, and guess what, that's allowed in this country. What I took issue with was the lack of constructive criticism provided. Am I expecting too much from political opponents of the current administration? I don't think so, but it appears that during this election cycle we will see more than our fair share of the above, and less of the ideal.

Why is that? Do we all inherently crap on others without offering substance because politics is about soundbytes and jabs; making the other side look worse by comparison without regard to truth, fact, "nuance", or substance? Or is it possible that those who criticize do not even know what constructive criticism is (as a product of public school, this does not seem outlandish)? Maybe we need a definition:

constructive

ADJECTIVE:
1. Serving to improve or advance; helpful: constructive criticism. 2. Of or relating to construction; structural. 3. Law Based on an interpretation; not directly expressed.

"Serving to improve or advance; helpful". If individuals are true to themselves, they can easily see that most (99%) of political criticism does not come close to being constructive (this includes both sides of the aisles, so stop pointing at the other guy). And suffice it to say, it has been my experience that those who offer nothing but critiques lacking in constructive responses are not to be taken seriously.

Should the current administration be criticized for their bumble-f--king around in Iraq? Sure. But in doing so, it might be best if commentators offered ideas on HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER. Stop using 20/20 hindsight to support 'gotcha' and 'I told you so' statements as no one appreciates that worthless crap. Seriously, how many communists have given up their support of a corrupt doctrine based on the 'I told you so' statements regarding the former USSR? Exactly.

For example, I would criticize the occupation for attempting to pacify the minority of Iraqis whose sole purpose was to stick around and screw up anything the US did. I never would have let Sadr get a leg up after the war, I would've covered the ground with so many marines that anyone THINKING of attacking coalition troops in hopes of starting an uprising would be 1) shot on site or 2) arrested and held until democracy took root (around 2010). I can understand the US not wanting to appear cold-hearted, which is likely why they let these groups continue to simmer (in hopes that local Iraqis would calm the storm, a premise almost as stupid as thinking a proud people would welcome being militarily destroyed in under a week). However, in the long run it only serves to embolden those who think we will not respond (i.e. Mogadishu). Now that their mistake has been realized, they are going about rectifying the situation in a perfectly satisfactory manner, which hopefully will bring about the end result of neutralizing these minimal threats. But I would stretch it further than just Fullajah, I would run a sweep of the entire nation. Get everyone, not just those insurgents who have played their hand early.

See, constructive criticism. It's really not that hard, except if one is more interested in flinging mud in hopes that it will stick, rather than identifying REAL problems and offering ideas for REAL solutions. Treat it like a business where you have a substantial interest in seeing success over failure.

I agree with Oliver that withdrawal is NOT an option, and never has been. The point is to 1) slowly turn over control to the Iraqis when they are ready, 2) support them as their fledgling democracy takes root and grows (i.e. trade pacts, etc) and 3) demonstrate that the US makes good on its word, even if it makes mistakes along the way. The last thing the US needs is another damn Mogadishu.

Final Note: There are plenty of sites out there that offer definitions of arguments and fallacies (straw men, etc.) After reading countless blogs during the past few years it has become painfully clear that many do not understand argumentation. So, as a reading assignment to everyone (including myself, never hurts to touch up), I offer the following. Read it; learn it; use it. We have enough to worry about with big media screwing things up without having commentators in the blogosphere doing the same (that especially goes for those who enjoy the personal attack, as nothing loses you an argument faster than "well, you're stupid....")

Banning Porn == Bad For My Weekends (weekdays, weeknights)

2004-04-08T01:41:00.000Z

Banning porn is stupid. Period. Waste of time and resources, not to mention it will do jack crap to curb the appetite of those who really want it (similar to drugs, although I feel the 'War' on drugs is a more worthwhile venture than any War on Titties would be). Suffice it to say, it's rather embarassing that this is even an issue, unless Bush plans on sneaking in some Medical Tort Reform stuff into the bill , in which case I'd gladly suppor the *ban*.

Hans Blix: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

2004-04-08T01:28:00.000Z

For me, the war on Iraq was more than part of the WOT, more than about possible nukes, more than about fixing our past implantation of that bastard, and more than about implanting Democracy in the Middle East. It was all of those things combined, plus a little f--k you to the rest of the world. After years of bowing to foreign pressure on everything from Kyoto (thank the Lord we didn't sign that one) to 'measured' responses when American interests abroad were attacked, we finally put the USA back on top.

Does this sound like patriotic flag waving? Yes. And I'm happy with that. All those other things were fine reasons as well, but earning back respect for the world's superpower after nuancing our way to chapped lips for over a decade was something I completely supported. And I have no misgivings, even with the high cost (money and human life, God Bless the Troops).

So, of course this statement by uberdouche Hans Blix doesn't sit well with me.

"The only positive point in this war is having gotten rid of a dictatorial regime which was covered in blood," he said.

That should've been it. Seriously, any moral person would say that, and nothing else. But of course, this follows:

"But the cost has been very high with all the lives lost, Americans and Iraqis, the destruction of the country and the emergence of terrorism in Iraq."

I'm sure the Iraqis love that. I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Jewish friends say "You know, the only positive thing in WWII was getting rid of a fascist regime which was covered in blood, BUT the cost was rather high with all the lives lost, Americans, French, Germans, Brits, the destruction of countries and the emergence of terrorism in Iraq."

Hans Blix, wearing his appeasers badge with pride since 1884.

Pseudoscience American

2004-04-07T20:56:00.000Z

If you want good old fashioned blowhards, this is a great place to start.

Basically, Shermer goes on a witch hunt, condemning 'smart' people for believing in things not supported by HIS science. My favorite is the following:

And for embracing alternative medicine, the percentages actually increase, from 89 percent for high school grads to 92 percent for college grads

This causes him concern? I wonder if this intellectual giant has bothered researching what he terms 'alternative medicine'. Does he know there are documented studies whereby acupuncture is accepted as 'effective' in treatment of acute back pain? The fact that it has been shown unaffective in chronic back pain means nothing in this context, just in case you were wondering. Are we to scoff at those who genuinely feel they gain something from chiropractics, etc merely because Shermer's 'science' has not adequately provided him the evidence HE needs to say "yes, this is true"? No.

The alternative is to say "F--K You, Shermer" and move on to more important issues, like actually paying for those medical visits when your insurance company denies coverage. What he misses, as do many other 'die-hard' scientists, is the notion that we are not capable of explaining many of the things in our world. Science, in and of itself, is a faith-based system (those who are intellectually honest will admit this to themselves, so be wary of 'scientists' who do not). Especially in medicine, where the 'placebo' effect is documented fact, physicians understand that science cannot explain what is going on, or why some treatments work wonders on patient a, but kill patient b. Can't explain it, nor do we really need to.

We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, compared with 38 percent of those with a middle-level science education (six to eight such courses) and 17 percent with a low level (five or fewer courses).

I included the above statement, which coincidentally fell immediately after my above quote, because of 1 word. Can you guess what word that is? PROBLEM, as in We can glean a deeper cause of this PROBLEM... If it's not clear to you that Shermer is seling something @ this point in the article, I can't help you. I had to fight just to continue reading this self-inflating crap. It's not bad enough that 'intellectuals' love to spar with those they deem 'below' them on any chance they get, but to write this sort of grandstanding, whereby scientists are put on a pedestal of all things 'right', free from bias, perversion, etc. is absolute nonsense. Maybe I should write an email linking the recent Lancet debacle whereby former MMR research 'scientists' disavowed their study due to the lead author working under the guise of a lawyer. Ahh, the sweet taste of hypocrisy in the afternoon.

Scientific American is decent to read sometimes, but they to easily get caught up in the "we're better than you because we're professional scientists" crap to actually be worthwhile in the long run. I'd suggest it to no one, unless you want ideas on how NOT to write/act.

Lord Help Us If Kerry Is Elected

2004-04-07T19:43:00.000Z

there's really no other response to the entirety of Kerry's campaign rhetoric, including this jewel from Staff Seargent Stupid:

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

put this together with the corporate tax 'reform' and other mindless campaign 'policies' and you've got a boring Mondale with no grasp on reality. that's without even mentioning his only consistent trait, being inconsistent.

UPDATE: and here he is yet again folks, your favority uppity, n.eastern liberal who when he's not screaming "SOB" @ security service professionals, or cutting in line @ movie theatres with a quick "do you know who i am?", is brandishing unsupported claims about the administration's motives for Iraq:

"I think the June 30 deadline is a fiction and they never should have set an arbitrary deadline, which almost clearly has been affected by the election schedule in the United States of America,” Kerry told National Public Radio in an interview to be broadcast Wednesday.

Of course, being as good as NPR is, there was apparently no follow-up for why the presumptive Democratic failure believed any of his own gibberish. Here's the article

PSII/XBox See Rise In Sales Thanks To Surgeons

2004-04-07T14:24:00.000Z

As reported here, a study appears to have shown that "doctors who spent at least three hours a week playing video games made about 37 percent fewer mistakes in laparoscopic surgery and performed the task 27 percent faster than their counterparts who did not play video games."

Of course they made fewer mistakes, those surgeons were in the on-call room playing video games instead of performing surgeries. Seriously though, does this really surprise anyone who has played video games before? Since I grew up on Atari, Nintendo, Sega, etc. this hardly seems newsworthy, unless the end result is to introduce a "Video Gaming Class" during medical school for aspiring surgeons.

The study on whether good video game skills translate into surgical prowess was done by researchers with Beth Israel and the National Institute on Media and the Family at Iowa State University. It was based on testing 33 fellow doctors (sic) 12 attending physicians and 21 medical school residents who participated from May to August 2003.

Each doctor completed three video game tasks that tested such factors as motor skills, reaction time and hand-eye coordination.

I will admit that I have not looked this up on Pubmed (nor will I), and am going by this article, but those numbers aren't exactly robust. Very small sample size. Not to mention (here's the funny part to me), 36.36% of the participants were attendings, which implies they are in fact better at performing these surgeries than their residents. As I stated though, I haven't dug into the actual stats and teased out who did better (attendings or students), etc. I'm merely pointing out some obvious questions.

Conclusion: playing video games helps hand/eye coordination. We needed a study for this?! Seriously, this ranks up there with studies showing people feel better after having sex and reading helps vocabulary.

No Tax Cut For The Rich

2004-04-07T13:47:00.000Z

Sounds like a left-wing protest, doesn't it? You know, where prags walk around with Palestinian flags and socialist rags.

From econopundit this morning we have a nice graph displaying those supposed tax cuts for the rich

Money Quote:
So far there appears no evidence whatsoever of the "tax cut for the rich" charge. Changing regulations have reduced the burden of each income quintile except that at the very top. From the standpoint of all federal taxes, 2001 represents increased income progressivity as compared with the previous decades.

In fact, from 79-01, the top quintile has increased its mammoth share almost 15% to a whopping 65.3%, while those in the bottom 4 quintiles have enjoyed a nice 20% decline in their burden (numbers are rounded to nearest whole number) to 34.7%. Remember folks, this means that 20% is carrying almost DOUBLE the tax burden of the other 80% of the country.

The next time someone spouts "No Tax Cuts For The Rich", you can respond "Damn Straight!!!! They carry a larger burden than ever before, those poor bastards!!" In fact, if you happen to run into a rich person, don't beg for a loan (they've already indirectly given you one), just say "Thanks for paying your taxes".

Final Note: I haven't seen the most recent numbers on this, but last time I checked (2001), the cutoff for being part of the top 5% was $93,300. Now honestly, if that's the top 5%, where do you think the top 20% income falls? As Bruce Bartlett said back in 2001: "They probably don't realize that when liberals talk about "the rich," they mean them."

UPDATE: i received a reply stating that if percentage of national income has increased for the top quintile, it naturally makes sense that their burden of taxation has gone up, although this doesn't mean effective tax rates have increased for those individuals. when share of income (pre-tax) changes are computed, we see a 15.16% (45.5% to 52.4%) increase for the top quintile, with a 12.66% (54.5% to 47.6%) decrease in the bottom four quintiles. so, the burden HAS kept pace with the relative increase in share of income for the top quintile, while the burden has DECREASED (on the aggregate) for the bottom four quintiles. interesting outcome, but still supports the claim that there have been NO tax breaks for the 'rich' as their burden has matched their increased share of national income, while all others have enjoyed a nice decline in their burden that surpasses their increasing percentage of national income.

have fun with the numbers here if you are so inclined.

Split Personality

2004-04-07T01:15:00.000Z

Recently posted over @ Blogging Teen

During my short life so far, I have seen three types of people that attend the church.

1) A person that is not ashamed of the gospel in church as well as in the secular world.
2) The most common type of person is one who is ashamed of the gospel in the secular world, but is not in the church.
3) Finally, a person does not even believe the gospel, period.

I posted a question that went:

do you ever wonder why that is? are we more afraid to share the good news, or are we more ashamed to share the good news? or is it something else entirely?

I'd like to comment a little further on this, then open it up (since there are so many people flooding the comments section today /sarcasm). It doesn't require a seminary student to point out open religosity is rather anemic. In this day of secularism (or its opposite, militant religious extremism), religious individuals carefully parse their statements when outside the confines of church walls. Bringing up God @ work or school can bring callous cries of "creationist (as if this is an insult)", "bigot", "racist", "member of the VRWC", "Hitler Spawn", and on and on and on. While one can feel free to express love for God @ home, church, or somewhere private, most are ashamed to demonstrate this love (and fear) where someone might see. So which is it, fear of someone speaking out against us, or shame for having these beliefs? Both?

From a theological standpoint, I sometimes wonder if this is a result of The Fall. Once we were separated from God, did we not only become aware of our nakedness, our mortality, our falibility, but perhaps also, shamed for who we are and where we came from? When Adam lunged for cover, did that also represent things to come for man, constantly lunging and hiding from God in work, in carpools, in school....? Like I said, and Blogging Teen stated, it poses an interesting question/dilemma.

If we are to be good Christians, what sort of example does it send when we extol the virtues of Christ in Church, but nowhere else? It reminds me of a scenario where Ted Kennedy stands in front of ANSWER protestors screaming "BUSHITLER NEEDS TO GO!!". Sir, you're speaking to the choir, just as Christians do when they only praise the Lord in the company of other Christians.

Christianity has a great message, and it needs to be heard by others, not by your church elders.

On the same token, along with hiding our love and praise for God, most of us are very bad at molding Jesus to fit US. Sorry folks, that's not how it works (I'm just as guilty as the next person). You likely know this, but selectively ignore it so that you feel less guilty about 1) premarital sex, 2) homosexuality, 3) cheating on your taxes, 4) not helping your neighbor, etc. It's called 'hypocrisy', and it's what I used to 'preach' to my 'bible-thumping' friends before I became a Christian. Those youth group kids Blogging Teen mentioned, I knew them. Right after they finished it was off to drink beer, have sex, vandalize, etc. Mind you, not all the kids did this, but the majority did and it made it that much easier for me to write off what they had to say regarding the Lord.

Actions speak louder than words, so act like you love and fear God, don't just say that you do.

Why Have Grades In Medical School - Part I

2004-04-07T00:13:00.000Z

In what is sure to become a running theme on this site, I will attempt to eschew the grading system that currently infects medical school institutions around the country. People are encouraged to offer their opinions so that I might better understand this entire issue.

First off, why have grades when students are in a post-grad institution? If someone could please provide me a valid reason, I would greatly appreciate it. To me, Pass/Fail is perfect for many reasons, including less pressure, less backstabbing, increased learning, etc. For each friend I have at an institution whereby there is an A,B,C/Honors,High Pass, Pass/Great, Average, Sucky system, I can provide countless anecdotes of 'missing library books', 'lack of student comraderie', etc. On the flip side though, I do not see this AS MUCH with students attending systems where Pass/Fail is the grade given in the grade book.

Now, could part of this be the culture of said institution? Of course. We'd be stupid not to consider that. However, when one does so one finds that many highly regarded institutions do not stratify their students. Maybe they know something 'lower' regarded schools do not. I am not trying to bash schools not listed in the top 25 medical schools, brought to us by the unbiased editors of USN&WR (until this thing gets going, and readers begin to understand my style, I will leave /sarcasm notation where applicable), merely pointing out some inconsistencies.

Having never been graded in only a pass/fail fashion, I agree it is rather difficult for me to praise it. However, having been under the stratification system for over 20 years, I am fully capable of crapping on that system. I can personally attest to it providing all of the downsides noted above, with no apparent upsides. Some might say, "the system encourages people to work harder". To that I say, if you are letting in students to medical school that still need a motherly figure standing over them screaming "DO YOUR HOMEWORK!! LEARN THOSE ARTERIES!!", then you might want to reconsider your admission policies. Part of becoming a doctor, and a responsible adult, is taking it upon yourself to study, read, plan, etc.

What about the "it's unfair for someone who puts forth 20% effort to gain the same credit as someone who puts forth 90% effort" response? Well, this is equally stupid in my mind. Think back to what your high school grades meant -- nothing. For a few seconds they were important while colleges read your application, but we all know SAT/ACT scores were the most important thing we did. Think back to what you college grades meant -- nothing. For post-grad work it's all about entrance exams (LSAT, GMAT, MCAT, DAT). So in essence, the grades you received served no purpose, except to stratify students, produce conflict, increase stress, etc. In those classes that were pass/fail, or provided no grade whatsover (participation meant passing), there was less conflict and less stress. Should we not be providing this sort of environment for higher learning?

To be continued....

Why Does Krugman Still Have A Job?

2004-04-06T23:14:00.000Z

In Luskinesque form, Gene Epstein writing in Barron's completely demolishes the farce that is Krugman's "unemployment rate has fallen since last summer...[is] entirely the result of people dropping out of the labor force" statement from a few weeks back. While Luskin gets his due for sticking it to Krugman on many turns, Epstein deserves note for using economics against a purported economics professor (of the ivy league persuasion, no less)! This is not a slander against Luskin, who offers many insights, both financial and economic, in his arguments. However, there's something about Epstein sticking it to Krugman with his own stats, then closing with "In sum, to make an historical comparison between now and 20 years ago, you either had to adjust the old data upward, or the new data downward. If you want to use these numbers to know what's happening in the real world, you have to know these things."

In short, I'd love to see Brad DeLong weigh in on this (in an academic sense), since he never really misses an opportunity to stick up for his closet-boyfriend.

Also, there was a recent post (memory is bad, forgetting who posted it; i will update when i remember) demonstrating just how inconsequential Krugman is as an economist. In an area where he is sometimes touted as the end all, be all (free trade), a review paper mentioned none of his work. In fact, they completely glossed over his 'home market' theory without a single remark. Hmm.....silence is not your friend Krugman, which is probably why you enjoy to hear your own shill remarks on a bi-weekly basis from the cover of ol lady gray.

One last note: as an economics student, throughout micro, macro, econometrics, foreign/trade finance, etc. I never once was introduced to the ideas/rantings of Paul Krugman. I was so shocked one day to read that he was a Bates Medal Winner in the field, and a virtual shoe-in for the Nobel prize in said area of study. Were ALL of my professors that obtuse, that blinded by the greatness that is Krugman that they failed to even MENTION his work? Or have his theories simply been shown demonstrably false since his heyday?

Procrastination Will Be The Death of Someone Else

2004-04-06T22:14:00.001Z

As I attempt to study for an upcoming exam, my mind is far from pharmacology, histology and many other -ologies. It never fails; with a test around the corner I press on with less important activities such as blogging, cleaning house and staring at the trees. While this fault shows itself on a rather continuous basis with me, I was naive enough to believe medical school would punish that out of me. Point of fact though, it has not even come close. I still only study a few days before an exam. With boards coming up, I prefer the sound of Walter Beasley to the harsh text of First Aid. Sometimes I wonder if this will hurt me in the future (or rather, if it will hurt my patients in the future), which allows me to focus for another 5 minutes before quickly wisking myself away to the kitchen for non-existent delectables (remember, POOR medical student).

Now to the point: why do so many of us procrasinate? Do we only procrastinate those things forced upon us (whether forced by an outsider, or our own selves)? Arguably, most individuals can focus and get the job done when it is required. This leads into shoddy, last-minute work; the kind of work you are ashamed to turn in, choosing rather to blame it on a crying baby or a sick parent than accept the notion you merely put it off.

I'm sure we could come up with a thousand different reasons for 'why', all equally vapid as most excuses are. The point, however, is not to belittle the question of 'why', but rather to understand 'how'. 'How' do we get around it? 'How' do we deal with it so that it does not effect our lives in a large way? For some it's the lure of speed (a.k.a ritalin), which coincidentally also cures hyperactivity, etc. (If this blog goes long enough, my views on parents desiring complacent medication for their growing children will surely come out). For others it's the lure of completing a job; arguably the reasoning that most inclines me to work on the house, car, patient, etc. As I am sure there are many others, I am growing tired of this little rant.....

poorphilosophicalstudent