re: Defeat the Nurse Practitioner scope of practice expansion - Louisiana SB 187

quote:

---

A PhD in a "hard-science" field who teaches medical students is a doctor - academically.

---

The fact is they are a doctor. You can't argue that. No one is saying they are a medical doctor. No one is saying they are trying to pass themselves off as a medical doctor. They aren't after your piece of the pie so calm down, Beavis.

US healthcare is ranked 37th in OT outcomes, yet cost the most per capita

Why does everyone defend a broken system in any way?

quote:

---

Why does everyone defend a broken system in any way?

---

Everyone doesn't defend the system. The problem is the greed and apathy of many of the pieces.

quote:

---

I have a ton of respect for pharmacists. They are not doctors

---

last time i looked at my degree it said Doctor of Pharmacy...

stop trying to lay claim to the whole "doctor" title, you self-righteous dick... my doctorate is just as valid as yours is... they didn't just hand them out, i had to earn it just as you did to earn yours...

get it straight... you are a physician, and i will never call a physician a "doctor", one, because the two nomenclatures are not mutually exclusive, and, two, it's very pretentious anyway....

so please, please, please, get the frick off that high horse of yours... no one is impressed that you are a physician, just like no one is impressed that i'm a pharmacist, or that so and so is a nurse practitioner...

What's funny is that I imagine this thread has done nothing but brought up some points that probably turn more voters to voting for this when before they were probably more indifferent

I know for a fact before I was much more indifferent when if I run across it on a ballot now I'll be voting for it.

The OP is a dick with little to no tact, but there's plenty of discussion in here about why this is a bad idea.

quote:

---

And still the thread continues.

---

Then quit posting in it.

quote:

---

appointment cancelled by the physician and rescheduled for 6 weeks later. Especially when it is for an issue that is currently not receiving care

---

This is unacceptable.

quote:

---

a wound that is obviously infected

---

Devil's advocate here- What makes it "obviously infected" and the average layperson able to distinguish that?

Of course, there are bad physicians out there. And I don't mean to ask say that you don't know what you're talking about. But when it comes to things that are "obvious," I could list a hundred things that I thought were obvious before becoming a physician that have become infinitely more complex as I've become more exposed to the field. People come in all the time with "obvious" things all the time and demand certain treatments which are unnecessary and/or unwarranted.

But at any rate, if you or someone you know are involved with a practice that makes you wait 6 weeks for an acute issue and there is literally any way to see someone else, I'd highly consider it. But if that's the case, one of the following is highly likely:

1) patient is uninsured, covered by UCC or similar, seen by a physician who is totally inundated and backed up because the number of physicians who can be employed to see patients who literally can't pay is very low. There's no good remedy from the patient's perspective here. The best they can hope for is a boom in primary care and more physicians giving away more free care out of the kindness of their hearts.

2) this physician is a specialist. They get booked and don't take new/acute complaints often. If that's the case, start with primary care

3) patient is in a grossly underserved area with a swamped physician with whom they are not established. This is the least likely. Primary care wait times should never be 6 weeks for an acute issue.

4) that Doctor sucks.

quote:

---

US healthcare is ranked 37th in OT outcomes, yet cost the most per capita

Why does everyone defend a broken system in any way?

---

Everyone uses those stats to argue how "broken" or "shitty" our healthcare is in America. But these rank lists are actually quite deceiving. If you take into consideration how the different systems operate, you will notice that these rank lists actually don't mean what everyone uses them to mean.

In America, you can be treated no matter how sick, old, or old and sick you are. Yeah healthcare isn't free here like it is in France or Japan, but the patient can basically get whatever he/she wants here. This may result in huge bills, but you can still have "everything done."

In these "utopias" with "universal healthcare that is free for everybody," there comes a time when the government decides your life expectancy or worth to society isn't worth the cost of that MRI, or radiation treatment, or surgery. Even though it may keep you alive for months or a year or whatever.

Now lets talk about outcomes. When you exclude those sick/old/old and sick/sick and old patients that the government has decided aren't worth the investment, of fricking course your outcomes will be better.

So yeah, we spend a shitton more on healthcare here. Sometimes patients and their families hang on too long. But at least the patient and family actually get to take part in that decision in America. Its far from perfect. But it can always be worse.

America.