Another Minister interrupted by Doctors - McMaster

[sprinkles]

http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2012/07/19/hamilton-doctor-protest.html

 

thoughts?

[future_doc]

This is great! The government consists of insensitive idiots and anything that credible people can do to shine a light on this travesty of justice is good.

 

We as Canadian have always been decent people and creating public awareness is the most powerful weapon.

[future_doc]

Standing up for the rights of the vulnerable who have no vioce whatsoever as regards access to their health is the right thing to do and only the government looks bad, not the doctors who courageously take this stand.

[ch3wbacca1991]

I don't necessarily agree with the doctors viewpoints but they and whoever stands up to these politician earned a great deal of respect from me!

[Dr.Henderson]

I never said they shouldn't take a stand, I said this isn't the right way to do it. Interrupting speeches and acting like American teaparty people in townhall meetings is not the way to do this and makes us look bad.

 

Plus, the government doesn't look bad at all, in fact they have the support of a majority of Canadians on this so maybe we should be educating the public instead of disrupting unrelated ceremonies like children.

 

Unfortunately the government has refused to meet with doctors and/or their professional bodies on the issues- that's been well established if you've followed the progress of this issue. If the government is ignoring requests for dialogue with a well respected profession and its governing bodies how would you recommend proceeding? I'm sure they'd be interested in any form of approach that would yield better success while still recognizing the necessity of a quick reversal of policy- people's lives are being put at risk. For the time being, this one (one of last resort), seems to be working- the media has picked it up and the federal government has been backtracking and flip-flopping on the issue.

 

Also, the federal government DOES look bad- they've been unable to adequately address doctors concerns at each of the announcements and have already revised their asinine cuts to refugee health care once due to the awareness created by doctors at these events. The media has shown strong support for the physicians who have interrupted public announcements by the government, and public response has been positive. The family physician that interrupted the funding announcement in Ottawa last month provided excellent information on the issues at hand when she was interviewed after the federal announcement. The federal government has lost the respect of many professional organizations and their members (scientists marched on parliament hill, lawyers and criminologists vehemently opposed the crime bill, and now doctors with refugee healthcare cuts) and when the public sees well-respected professionals angry about something, they tend to listen.

 

The majority of Canadians certainly do NOT support the government on this issue and I'd be interested in your source of this information. Nearly half of Canadians polled recently disapprove of the federal government, with only 34% approving: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/26/most-canadians-dislike-stephen-harper-poll and will continue to do so with the way the feds are behaving.

[apache]

for this issue i commend her, really a noble cause on this one... however, blanket support of health cuts at times uses patient interest to propogate physician interest... not the case here though

 

This is great! The government consists of insensitive idiots and anything that credible people can do to shine a light on this travesty of justice is good.

 

We as Canadian have always been decent people and creating public awareness is the most powerful weapon.

[apache]

honestly, i find the interuptions given by people to be well, overly, mild, i love using brutal overkill at times... during debate... there's a time for hammers, and a time for chissles, and with public officials, i love the hammer approach, you only look foolish, if the interuption turns into a debate, but with, well, a sufficient knowledge base, the debate can become humiliation very quickly, and it becomes hard to remove the person... how do you remove someone who well, has all the information, is intense, makes you look complicit in what people view as cruel and systemically persecutive means of cutting spending... rather than minor oversight... personally, send lobbyists imo, or send doctors who act like lawyers... brooks made a funny comment saying physicians need a lobby, they definitely do, unfortunately, the selection for medical school favors more timid and well, less polymathic individuals, with less charisma... i'm not generalizing, but law is well, a much more competitive and social faculty, and politics is well, not best intentions, but more a fight for support... i'd love to be at a harper speech and go off on mandatory minimums, we have to many hippie students doing this... too many hippy doctors... you don't hire a lawyer who's timid about going all the way to win to defend you, why allow one to misrepresent your profession on a national stage... if you want to speak out, you better be a walking army, as in i have this issue tatooed to my ass, know it in and out, in 15 different countries, while intense, it becomes obvious that stems from my knowledge, and the ensuing consequences, as well, i speak fluidly at first, establish my point at a level the speaker can't compete with, i don't check notes for stats, i've got every one of those stickies on the speakers page memorized... too many people try and garner emotional support first, before establishing absolutely projection of competancy in the issue, to the point where someone asks, why is the dissident not minister... then move into the heartbreaking stories... it's like philosophy, always give the other person every advantage, adopt their own paradigm, then humiliate them... when someone is embarassed and looks incompetant, they can't claim necessity to remove someone, it's seen as expdient at that point... so you have them on their knees, no excuses to kick you out at all... i guess it's the elitist in me, i think everyone's great, but if you have big goals, it's not ok to want to help, or to care, you have to have both, and you have to make sure you're nothing short of daunting, if you care that much, you owe it to your cause to bring it to the forefront, and if you're prepared, passionate, and come off as an absolute authority, stratospherically above say a minister of the topic, you'll get attention, and quickly...

 

maybe brooks is right, maybe med school should teach lobbying and debate... maybe with public health issues... lol, people need to learn politics isn't a game, it's not like carms interviews, with formalities and polight bs, it's cut throat... and being a physician doesn't inherantly mean you're a good health advocate... at least an effective one... although some people are... i guess med school doesn't train you to systemically dissect authority figures (faux paux, lol... but imo, if you want authority, you better be authoritive, to many people lay back helplessly and say i can't challenge that person, it's out of line... well why not... it's out of line that i know more about medical politics than most doctors... and that many are so focussed on reaching the next step in life that studying biology and being sheltered from criticism (do arts, getting called rediculous in class isn't that unusual i remember tearing ethics prof dude in med and getting **** for it... the guy was an idiot, i've taken ethics, and i'm sorry my classmates understanding or public speaking skills, charisma ended at stem cell and physician assisted suicide... these are important skills, you can take orders, work in a hospital, and complain, or be a leader, and to be a leader you need to be clinically adept, and an adept communicator with an excellent understanding of all topics at hand, communication, projection, rapport, and at times... switching out of normal kiss ass cronyism motivated canadian mode, into the more meritocratic, raw, american mode... means that well, don't **** with me in debates, im smarter, more charming, more socially competent, better spoken, know the material vastly deeper, can be emotionally fluid, project imagery which suggests underlying feelings I don't have (maybe it's a psych thing... do you think psychiatrists always feel empathy... even though you don't give a ****, you have to fake it sometimes, ditto with cultural differences... i can fake anger to build rapport and trust even if i completely disagree with someone's ideas)... in the end, the ends is what counts, projecting a horrible image of you're heartache over an emotional story, after you've shown a minister to be incompetant, unknowledgeable, lacking passion, enthusiasm, or empathy... sounds ****ed... but if you're playing to win, please don't go half way... there's a certain point... where titles don't matter, maybe that's why I seem so intense, but well, I havent met one psychiatrist that knows psychopharm better than me for example, at times in my first year I said I think this would be better, you're moving this for this complaint, but this antipsychotics selectively targets receptor x... patients main reason for non-compliance is b... lol, then again, when I know stuff 3 days after publication (how to prevent amphetamine tolerance) or well, years before release, I'm sorry, I'm just better than you, it's not a big deal, you have to be really nuts, and really passionate to read as much as I do, seriously, not many ADHD specialists can explain neurbiology of altered time perception, most generalists don't know this is a symptom... and I mean genealist psychiatrists... then again, most don't write books on ADD to publish someday in their freetime, but well, I like to understand myself, so ****, why not... yeah, goverment ministers would have fun debating me, it's an oppositional thing too I think, you screw people, people who have no avenue of retort, I used to be marginalized... I'm going to make you feel like a refugee just like I watched my imigrant dad patronized as kid, ironically the most passionate students are discouraged by the sit in a desk school system... I hear people discussing wikileaks, and ask about how funding would continue... so passionate, but the retaliation to oppression is by what... wearing long hair and a hoodie, **** that... thank god I had a dad that taught me respecting authority is more expedient... and only commendable when those in authority were acting responsibly... he had no reverance for authority figures who parlayed oppression on the backs of others suffering and taught me that it was important to fight when people abused power... I suppose it was a different time when he came... white old men... were the majority they are now... but only half... the others might as well been from Inglewood, California... racial slurs, violence... all the norm... I'm guessing being a professional boxer could have shaped that too... sidetrack... but yeah, we raise to many wusses nowadays... politeness is fine, blind obedience is stupid, if teacher is an ideologue... I'm teaching my kids an ed degree in front of an idiot, who parlays their messages to children, under protections the iinherant power relationship allows is coercive... reminds me of a grade 7 teacher I used to debate... she hated me... not supposed to debate, and well, one in particular bugged her, that sports players made so much... I essentially used a total utility to society argument... basically that while she believed teachers deserved more, they're added utility to each individual is grossly offset but the lesser individual emotional utility society is offered, on a much grander scale, as it effects millions, hence defending the hockey players salary... I'm sorry, this is a school, not your sounding board, and I'm sorry you got a conservative typical maybe 100 or 200 level university crisicism... I'm sure you're indoctrination isn't usually challenged, and honestly, competantly (no genius argument, but for being 12... it was a reasonable retort you'd likely get from a counterpart at work... she phoned my dad, who promptly told her to **** off... my dad wasn't laissez faire, if I was rude or something, he'd be like, be mroe respectful... but seriously... parents don't let kids speak out... if they have a good idea, then well, shame on the teacher... I guess that's a core for me, if you can't defend yourself, are incompetant, don't expect repreieve... no rhetoric please... the argument how can someone without experience in health care (an md) be allowed to determine health policy is often a safe bet, but can be perilous... because well, if I'm debating health policy with an MD, I will know it better than them, it's not an ego thing, if you care, you don't show up to lose... so using that rhetorically suggestive statement can also kill you, as did betting on childhood ignorance with the teacher, because that statement looks awful when someone you painted as less authoritive is suddenly authoritive... and this is why we have to teach people to not be afraid to stand up to people, to teachers, etc. It's as if we have a nation of complacency... I'm actually uber happy, contrary to the tone of my posts... but well, I don't half ass things, because I only do thinks I'm 110 percent on... if an isssue is important, you don't say son, question the person, but not to much to offend them (impression management counts, project a positive image, for better public appeal, but don't afford any courtesy if you want change... a lobbyist perhaps from an oil company would never oblige the same courtesy in debating land use... because well, he makes a lot, and money motivates him... you don't owe him ****... same thing with professionals, some docs, I have nothing but respect for, some, well, don't mistreat me, pimp me, etc., more than likely, you know a lot about a few things, I know a lot about a lot, if you want to play that game, I'll go tit for tat, I know I'm very desirable, my goals in life have few limitations your opinion can impose, since, well, I'm very good, scary good, and well, a little nuts, not the let things go type... well, I am 99 percent of the time, but again, people who abuse authority, ohh... I'm so the wrong person, and I'm that dude who doesn't complain to the complaints department, I prefer higher up, and well, I know a lot of law, you know some minutia, I guess 30 years of that... you pick it up, sucks I have equivelant knowledge in one of well, a plethora of subjects I explore for pleasure. It's simple, respect others, you get respect... because I'll come back, and embarass you in front your staff, who'll enjoy someone taking a stand, and guess what, maybe I'll get a letter saying I experienced extreme self esteem issues and depression from the bullying... rules, yeah, those are cool when expedient... imagine the letter writer is just like me, what, not all uptight and defensive... benevolantly malevolant towards predatory people, exagerative at times... well yeah, that's a little hardcore... an apology would get me to backoff... but the point is, these people wouldnt exist if we didnt select for complacency as a proxy personality variable to admissions criteria... i.e. an emergent factor you cluster factors in linear regression to co-correlate with personality tests and show high correlation with, showing links between personality types and admission behaviour... i.e. believing you're inadequate because you have a 3.8, not taking humanities for fear of a poor grade... all these are also indicative of being risk averse... the prior that your, as canada's own alberta bandura would say, very much dependent on external measures of self worth... the extent of achievement likely indicates low internal locus of control... as in, I hope I do well, I don't hope, I know... what do you say to others after the MMI... I aced it, I remember worried people thinking it was arrogant, but seriously, even the woman at the last talking station said I was amazing..., and I've been successful at 20 of 22 interviews... like the 26 of 27 scholarships... it's emotional stats... I don't expect to lose... this all sounds like I'm proping myself up... but if you don't believe... try and achieve... so much harder... it's why people who don't know you say you're arrogant, narcissistic... no, I'm not, I suck at a lot of things, and I don't bs about that, but well, I'm scary good at others... no gift, it's just, I put in twice as many hours, I don't study for A's, but because I give a ****, why waste life studying for letters... you'll always be trying to satisfy the next person, and letting your dreams slip away, If I say i want to do X, and well you did lesser to show off, please don't assume I have the same motives, and thus, my statements are braggardly... they're not... everyone coompetes like rats... manipulated by elite inteligentsia telling us what we need to be valuable, feel important... and we criticize the person who doesn't care, isn't competing, because tangental to following their passion, they happen to get something we only enjoy because we're taught it will make us important, or desirable... like the kids on here who want a lambo... literally, medicine sucks ****ing **** if you don't care... being a political lobbyist sucks **** if you don't care... doing anything hard sucks if you don't care... before people say well, we can't all be lobbyists who make a difference, or leaders in our fields... being a doctor is the probabilistically safe way to make money... lol, it's not, medicine is a **** way to make money, I would make more in law in 4 years, unquestioned... i hear the responses already... doctors have government salaries... they're guaranteed... yeah, i really give a **** about what I want to accomplish, hence, being in the top 1 percentile isn't hard within the fields I'm passionate about, law students are well, not too challenging in my opinion, not regarding any valuative statement... if you wanna finnish bottom of your class, don't give a ****, want to make cash, do medicine, be quiet about your views... or give bad speeches... if you want to do something of extrememe significance (and you don't have to, just don't assume others are in the same rat race and that them saying well, an MPH from Hopkins would be cool, if well, you want to be the next Piaget, love developmental psychology, it's easy... just like surgery is easy for some... the concept is ubquitous... if you want to be mediocre, stay away from serious people, as in, don't assume they have the same insecurities or play by the same rules, or that talking about their skills is bragging, or bull****... I don't need someone to tell me I'm a good public speaker... 4 years of doing it twice a week... I know I'm good, and I wouldn't have done it if it served no purpose in my goals in life, why waste your time.

 

Anyways, main points, if you give a ****, give a **** about what you give a **** about, don't *****, do, and if you do, don't embarass, conquer, work harder, if you give a ****, it should be worth it.

 

Please help change Canada... raise children who question things, who believe in themselves, who don't live in what seems a caste system of pre-delegated right to question authority. Also, don't think buying into the caste paradigm and dialing into a nice cast will mean you're inherantly this or that, a few people criticiszed me for seeming arrogant, well, regarding issues I give a **** about, forget the formalities... as a perceived authority of health, your ignorance has consequences in the general populations perception of truth... to the dude who called me arrogant for criticizing his definition of pseudoscience... I wouldn't if that very broad statement was backed up by more than... well, backed up by even one line. I'm not worried about myself, but others who believe initial delegated authorities statements... if you have grade 10 ed, you may believe that social anxiety disorder is scientific, rather than a patent extension attempt for a new treatment clause on an expiring SSRI, and there's well, an indirect incentive to propogating this false authority, there's no direct kickback, but well, the money comes around eventually. Hopefully the psychologists tear psych up, the nurses get a bite into anesthesiology... if empirically, we can provide the same care for less, it's hypocritical to say the government is asleep at the wheel, while doctors benevolant advocate... taking the moral high ground before you know where the road ends can be perilous... so I'd also caution riteous self-deceptive selfless servants of humanity types not to jump on bandwagons.

 

Wow, that was preachy, but well, how could I not go on, showing off of course, lol (indeed, it's only showing of you know, I have no confidence in myself, and need internet approval...no not really, I'm good, sorry for not thinking I'm a statistic, or being intimidated by lazy peple with initials, guess I wasn't raised that way (only directed to a few people , most are really cool ))

 

I never said they shouldn't take a stand, I said this isn't the right way to do it. Interrupting speeches and acting like American teaparty people in townhall meetings is not the way to do this and makes us look bad.

 

Plus, the government doesn't look bad at all, in fact they have the support of a majority of Canadians on this so maybe we should be educating the public instead of disrupting unrelated ceremonies like children.

[future_doc]

i love the hammer approach, you only look foolish, if the interuption turns into a debate, but with, well, a sufficient knowledge base, the debate can become humiliation very quickly, and it becomes hard to remove the person... how do you remove someone who well, has all the information, is intense, makes you look complicit in what people view as cruel and systemically persecutive means of cutting spending...

 

you don't hire a lawyer who's timid about going all the way to win to defend you, why allow one to misrepresent your profession on a national stage...

 

it's like philosophy, always give the other person every advantage, adopt their own paradigm, then humiliate them... when someone is embarassed and looks incompetant, they can't claim necessity to remove someone, it's seen as expdient at that point... so you have them on their knees, no excuses to kick you out at all...

 

if you care that much, you owe it to your cause to bring it to the forefront, and if you're prepared, passionate, and come off as an absolute authority, stratospherically above say a minister of the topic, you'll get attention, and quickly...

 

maybe brooks is right, maybe med school should teach lobbying and debate... maybe with public health issues... lol, people need to learn politics isn't a game, it's not like carms interviews, with formalities and polight bs, it's cut throat... and being a physician doesn't inherantly mean you're a good health advocate... at least an effective one...

 

in the end, the ends is what counts, projecting a horrible image of you're heartache over an emotional story, after you've shown a minister to be incompetant, unknowledgeable, lacking passion, enthusiasm, or empathy... sounds ****ed... but if you're playing to win, please don't go half way... there's a certain point... where titles don't matter

 

yeah, goverment ministers would have fun debating me, it's an oppositional thing too I think, you screw people, people who have no avenue of retort, I used to be marginalized... I'm going to make you feel like a refugee just like I watched my imigrant dad patronized as kid

 

thank god I had a dad that taught me respecting authority is more expedient... and only commendable when those in authority were acting responsibly... he had no reverance for authority figures who parlayed oppression on the backs of others suffering and taught me that it was important to fight when people abused power...

 

I guess that's a core for me, if you can't defend yourself, are incompetant, don't expect repreieve... no rhetoric please... the argument how can someone without experience in health care (an md) be allowed to determine health policy is often a safe bet, but can be perilous... because well, if I'm debating health policy with an MD

 

Please help change Canada...

 

+1........

[Outlaw]

I was going to comment on this but it's too late/early to siphon through muse's monster post lol.

[future_doc]

I shortened it.

[apache]

wow, don't read my other one... it's 4 times as long, lol

 

I was going to comment on this but it's too late/early to siphon through muse's monster post lol.

[aaronjw]

I was going to comment on this but it's too late/early to siphon through muse's monster post lol.

 

Ditto. Lol

[future_doc]

Actually far from boring and very important to citizens of good conscience who are aware, particularly physicians who are in a position to act as advocates in confronting ministers of government.

[future_doc]

It is incredibly boring. They still have access to emergency services and if worse comes to worst they will be able to get meds there, they could live in the er 24/7. This is a horrible way to conduct business and will cost us millions instead of saving us anything and I don't think it is the right way to go. So in the end this comes down to a resource allocation issue and a preventative medicine versus emergency medicine issue which is an old problem with a new face, and it is boring.

 

I appreciate that you may not think that I have a conscience, you are young, idealistic and brutally naive. My concern is that if doctors continue to go against popular opinion then they are going to see themselves further isolated from the public and in no position to lead or educate them. This should have been pitched as an economics issue from day one and then maybe you would have the publics backing instead of trying to burden their conscience with guilt.

 

We will agree to disagree. I did not say nor mean to imply that you do not have a conscience, I never considered that and of course, you do. I am young, idealistic, not naive and have considerable personal experience with refugees.

In my opinion, there is no popular opinion just uniformed brutality on the part of the governemnt that is trying unsuccessfully to create public opinion against giving refugees basic medical access and entitlement that any enlightened country would give, as we have been doing.

 

These doctors are not isolating them, rather bravely stepping up to the plate and advocating on behalf of the vulnerable and doing a credible job of it, hopefully creating a swell of public opinion, certainly trying and making the government squirm.

 

Canada does have the resources and should be using them for preventative care as in the past and the government is acting in a disgraceful and reprehensible way in my view.

 

PEACE

[Robin Hood]

http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2012/07/19/hamilton-doctor-protest.html

 

thoughts?

 

As long as this issue won't affect the gov't electoral outcome, they won't care. Also, refugees don't have a strong lobby, so the government can do anything they want, and no body will care.

[future_doc]

Their only lobby are the courageous doctors confronting the government ministers when the media is present, thereby creating public awareness and hopefully, sympathy for their plight, and change on the part of the government. Refugees are totally powerless otherwise, at the mercy of an indifferent government lacking in any shred of decency.

[A Second Daniel]

Their only lobby are the courageous doctors confronting the government ministers when the media is present, thereby creating public awareness and hopefully, sympathy for their plight, and change on the part of the government. Refugees are totally powerless otherwise, at the mercy of an indifferent government lacking in any shred of decency.

 

I hope I detect sarcasm. Canada has a great track record on refugee relations, and is a highly sought-after place to live. Our current government is definitely not trying to undermine that (at least no one was accusing them of that prior to their majority:p ) . What I have observed however is that since day one of the recent election, the Canadian zeitgeist has revolved around blaming the government for all our problems. Refugees still have access to essential medical care, and won't be dying due to medical conditions any time soon. Refugees actually put a large economic strain on the system, and an unwillingness to look at those numbers will smack of ignorance. These cuts are part of a greater plan to keep Canada still able to support the refugees we take in every year so the system doesn't collapse altogether.

 

Interrupting ministers the way some of these doctors have is admittedly childish, however as a last resort I would support it (there are better ways of getting your message across though). The bottom line is: these cuts will save our country from becoming Greece 2.0 because we don't have the resources to continue the way we are going. When you're enjoying financial success in the future, you can thank conservative finances for that and stop bashing the government for all our problems (although I doubt our next leftist government will).

[Dr.Henderson]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/27/docs-make-last-appeal-against-refugee-health-benefit-cuts

If you want to use a horrible resource like the Toronto sun I will follow suit, look at the poll results. People may not support Harper but they support him on this issue. SO like I was saying instead of interrupting government events and looking like a bunch of children, we should be acting like professionals and educating the public. How about an ad campaign I'm sure these docs can afford some air time.

 

 

And of course the government looks like idiots when you ambush someone at an unrelated press event with a well prepared argument when they arent prepared or unable to comment on the issue. It is like a douche manouver strait out of Bill O'Rileys play book. This issue is boring and I'm done with it.

 

I'm not seeing a published poll, or are you actually attempting to use the "reader response poll" that is completely unregulated and has no methodology whatsoever? I'd be hard pressed to say that a poll on a news website was representative of Canadian views.

 

I'm absolutely all for constructive criticism, so I'd ask you to add in the constructive bit at any point in time. Let's say you treat a vulnerable population like refugees, they are facing cuts to their healthcare that could result in serious complications. The government announces these cuts in April and is implementing them at the beginning of July- they refuse to meet with you or respond to your letters/emails. You can't exactly stage a protest because that would require leaving your practice and putting people at further risk. So, bearing in mind that you need to have a quick impact as these cuts are happening with little notice and will put patients at immediate risk, how do you get the attention of the media, the public, and the government?

 

Your suggestion thus far is to pay out of pocket for an ad campaign? What kind of a precedent does that set for everyone else? If the government is acting against the advice of experts/professionals than said experts/professionals should have to pay for ad campaigns so that the public may be informed?

[Dr.Henderson]

I hope I detect sarcasm. Canada has a great track record on refugee relations, and is a highly sought-after place to live. Our current government is definitely not trying to undermine that (at least no one was accusing them of that prior to their majority:p ) . What I have observed however is that since day one of the recent election, the Canadian zeitgeist has revolved around blaming the government for all our problems. Refugees still have access to essential medical care, and won't be dying due to medical conditions any time soon. Refugees actually put a large economic strain on the system, and an unwillingness to look at those numbers will smack of ignorance. These cuts are part of a greater plan to keep Canada still able to support the refugees we take in every year so the system doesn't collapse altogether.

 

Interrupting ministers the way some of these doctors have is admittedly childish, however as a last resort I would support it (there are better ways of getting your message across though). The bottom line is: these cuts will save our country from becoming Greece 2.0 because we don't have the resources to continue the way we are going. When you're enjoying financial success in the future, you can thank conservative finances for that and stop bashing the government for all our problems (although I doubt our next leftist government will).

 

Are you suggesting that a projected savings of 20 million dollars per year in a FEDERAL budget will save our economy from being Greece 2.0??? That's the projected savings from these cuts. Meanwhile we have a 22 billion dollar + military budget... These cuts will have absolutely zero bearing on the economy, any economist will tell you that.

 

Further, suggesting that no patient will die any time soon doesn't seem to jive with what the physicians in all of these articles have stated. People failing to get necessary preventative care and medication could easily result in death. In the article in this thread one of the physicians had a patient go without seizure medication and ended up being rushed to the emergency room. I would not be surprised in the least if these cuts eventually resulted in preventable deaths of patients.

[1234]

honestly, i find the interuptions given by people to be well, overly, mild, i love using brutal overkill at times... during debate... there's a time for hammers, and a time for chissles, and with public officials, i love the hammer approach, you only look foolish, if the interuption turns into a debate, but with, well, a sufficient knowledge base, the debate can become humiliation very quickly, and it becomes hard to remove the person... how do you remove someone who well, has all the information, is intense, makes you look complicit in what people view as cruel and systemically persecutive means of cutting spending... rather than minor oversight... personally, send lobbyists imo, or send doctors who act like lawyers... brooks made a funny comment saying physicians need a lobby, they definitely do, unfortunately, the selection for medical school favors more timid and well, less polymathic individuals, with less charisma... i'm not generalizing, but law is well, a much more competitive and social faculty, and politics is well, not best intentions, but more a fight for support... i'd love to be at a harper speech and go off on mandatory minimums, we have to many hippie students doing this... too many hippy doctors... you don't hire a lawyer who's timid about going all the way to win to defend you, why allow one to misrepresent your profession on a national stage... if you want to speak out, you better be a walking army, as in i have this issue tatooed to my ass, know it in and out, in 15 different countries, while intense, it becomes obvious that stems from my knowledge, and the ensuing consequences, as well, i speak fluidly at first, establish my point at a level the speaker can't compete with, i don't check notes for stats, i've got every one of those stickies on the speakers page memorized... too many people try and garner emotional support first, before establishing absolutely projection of competancy in the issue, to the point where someone asks, why is the dissident not minister... then move into the heartbreaking stories... it's like philosophy, always give the other person every advantage, adopt their own paradigm, then humiliate them... when someone is embarassed and looks incompetant, they can't claim necessity to remove someone, it's seen as expdient at that point... so you have them on their knees, no excuses to kick you out at all... i guess it's the elitist in me, i think everyone's great, but if you have big goals, it's not ok to want to help, or to care, you have to have both, and you have to make sure you're nothing short of daunting, if you care that much, you owe it to your cause to bring it to the forefront, and if you're prepared, passionate, and come off as an absolute authority, stratospherically above say a minister of the topic, you'll get attention, and quickly...

 

maybe brooks is right, maybe med school should teach lobbying and debate... maybe with public health issues... lol, people need to learn politics isn't a game, it's not like carms interviews, with formalities and polight bs, it's cut throat... and being a physician doesn't inherantly mean you're a good health advocate... at least an effective one... although some people are... i guess med school doesn't train you to systemically dissect authority figures (faux paux, lol... but imo, if you want authority, you better be authoritive, to many people lay back helplessly and say i can't challenge that person, it's out of line... well why not... it's out of line that i know more about medical politics than most doctors... and that many are so focussed on reaching the next step in life that studying biology and being sheltered from criticism (do arts, getting called rediculous in class isn't that unusual i remember tearing ethics prof dude in med and getting **** for it... the guy was an idiot, i've taken ethics, and i'm sorry my classmates understanding or public speaking skills, charisma ended at stem cell and physician assisted suicide... these are important skills, you can take orders, work in a hospital, and complain, or be a leader, and to be a leader you need to be clinically adept, and an adept communicator with an excellent understanding of all topics at hand, communication, projection, rapport, and at times... switching out of normal kiss ass cronyism motivated canadian mode, into the more meritocratic, raw, american mode... means that well, don't **** with me in debates, im smarter, more charming, more socially competent, better spoken, know the material vastly deeper, can be emotionally fluid, project imagery which suggests underlying feelings I don't have (maybe it's a psych thing... do you think psychiatrists always feel empathy... even though you don't give a ****, you have to fake it sometimes, ditto with cultural differences... i can fake anger to build rapport and trust even if i completely disagree with someone's ideas)... in the end, the ends is what counts, projecting a horrible image of you're heartache over an emotional story, after you've shown a minister to be incompetant, unknowledgeable, lacking passion, enthusiasm, or empathy... sounds ****ed... but if you're playing to win, please don't go half way... there's a certain point... where titles don't matter, maybe that's why I seem so intense, but well, I havent met one psychiatrist that knows psychopharm better than me for example, at times in my first year I said I think this would be better, you're moving this for this complaint, but this antipsychotics selectively targets receptor x... patients main reason for non-compliance is b... lol, then again, when I know stuff 3 days after publication (how to prevent amphetamine tolerance) or well, years before release, I'm sorry, I'm just better than you, it's not a big deal, you have to be really nuts, and really passionate to read as much as I do, seriously, not many ADHD specialists can explain neurbiology of altered time perception, most generalists don't know this is a symptom... and I mean genealist psychiatrists... then again, most don't write books on ADD to publish someday in their freetime, but well, I like to understand myself, so ****, why not... yeah, goverment ministers would have fun debating me, it's an oppositional thing too I think, you screw people, people who have no avenue of retort, I used to be marginalized... I'm going to make you feel like a refugee just like I watched my imigrant dad patronized as kid, ironically the most passionate students are discouraged by the sit in a desk school system... I hear people discussing wikileaks, and ask about how funding would continue... so passionate, but the retaliation to oppression is by what... wearing long hair and a hoodie, **** that... thank god I had a dad that taught me respecting authority is more expedient... and only commendable when those in authority were acting responsibly... he had no reverance for authority figures who parlayed oppression on the backs of others suffering and taught me that it was important to fight when people abused power... I suppose it was a different time when he came... white old men... were the majority they are now... but only half... the others might as well been from Inglewood, California... racial slurs, violence... all the norm... I'm guessing being a professional boxer could have shaped that too... sidetrack... but yeah, we raise to many wusses nowadays... politeness is fine, blind obedience is stupid, if teacher is an ideologue... I'm teaching my kids an ed degree in front of an idiot, who parlays their messages to children, under protections the iinherant power relationship allows is coercive... reminds me of a grade 7 teacher I used to debate... she hated me... not supposed to debate, and well, one in particular bugged her, that sports players made so much... I essentially used a total utility to society argument... basically that while she believed teachers deserved more, they're added utility to each individual is grossly offset but the lesser individual emotional utility society is offered, on a much grander scale, as it effects millions, hence defending the hockey players salary... I'm sorry, this is a school, not your sounding board, and I'm sorry you got a conservative typical maybe 100 or 200 level university crisicism... I'm sure you're indoctrination isn't usually challenged, and honestly, competantly (no genius argument, but for being 12... it was a reasonable retort you'd likely get from a counterpart at work... she phoned my dad, who promptly told her to **** off... my dad wasn't laissez faire, if I was rude or something, he'd be like, be mroe respectful... but seriously... parents don't let kids speak out... if they have a good idea, then well, shame on the teacher... I guess that's a core for me, if you can't defend yourself, are incompetant, don't expect repreieve... no rhetoric please... the argument how can someone without experience in health care (an md) be allowed to determine health policy is often a safe bet, but can be perilous... because well, if I'm debating health policy with an MD, I will know it better than them, it's not an ego thing, if you care, you don't show up to lose... so using that rhetorically suggestive statement can also kill you, as did betting on childhood ignorance with the teacher, because that statement looks awful when someone you painted as less authoritive is suddenly authoritive... and this is why we have to teach people to not be afraid to stand up to people, to teachers, etc. It's as if we have a nation of complacency... I'm actually uber happy, contrary to the tone of my posts... but well, I don't half ass things, because I only do thinks I'm 110 percent on... if an isssue is important, you don't say son, question the person, but not to much to offend them (impression management counts, project a positive image, for better public appeal, but don't afford any courtesy if you want change... a lobbyist perhaps from an oil company would never oblige the same courtesy in debating land use... because well, he makes a lot, and money motivates him... you don't owe him ****... same thing with professionals, some docs, I have nothing but respect for, some, well, don't mistreat me, pimp me, etc., more than likely, you know a lot about a few things, I know a lot about a lot, if you want to play that game, I'll go tit for tat, I know I'm very desirable, my goals in life have few limitations your opinion can impose, since, well, I'm very good, scary good, and well, a little nuts, not the let things go type... well, I am 99 percent of the time, but again, people who abuse authority, ohh... I'm so the wrong person, and I'm that dude who doesn't complain to the complaints department, I prefer higher up, and well, I know a lot of law, you know some minutia, I guess 30 years of that... you pick it up, sucks I have equivelant knowledge in one of well, a plethora of subjects I explore for pleasure. It's simple, respect others, you get respect... because I'll come back, and embarass you in front your staff, who'll enjoy someone taking a stand, and guess what, maybe I'll get a letter saying I experienced extreme self esteem issues and depression from the bullying... rules, yeah, those are cool when expedient... imagine the letter writer is just like me, what, not all uptight and defensive... benevolantly malevolant towards predatory people, exagerative at times... well yeah, that's a little hardcore... an apology would get me to backoff... but the point is, these people wouldnt exist if we didnt select for complacency as a proxy personality variable to admissions criteria... i.e. an emergent factor you cluster factors in linear regression to co-correlate with personality tests and show high correlation with, showing links between personality types and admission behaviour... i.e. believing you're inadequate because you have a 3.8, not taking humanities for fear of a poor grade... all these are also indicative of being risk averse... the prior that your, as canada's own alberta bandura would say, very much dependent on external measures of self worth... the extent of achievement likely indicates low internal locus of control... as in, I hope I do well, I don't hope, I know... what do you say to others after the MMI... I aced it, I remember worried people thinking it was arrogant, but seriously, even the woman at the last talking station said I was amazing..., and I've been successful at 20 of 22 interviews... like the 26 of 27 scholarships... it's emotional stats... I don't expect to lose... this all sounds like I'm proping myself up... but if you don't believe... try and achieve... so much harder... it's why people who don't know you say you're arrogant, narcissistic... no, I'm not, I suck at a lot of things, and I don't bs about that, but well, I'm scary good at others... no gift, it's just, I put in twice as many hours, I don't study for A's, but because I give a ****, why waste life studying for letters... you'll always be trying to satisfy the next person, and letting your dreams slip away, If I say i want to do X, and well you did lesser to show off, please don't assume I have the same motives, and thus, my statements are braggardly... they're not... everyone coompetes like rats... manipulated by elite inteligentsia telling us what we need to be valuable, feel important... and we criticize the person who doesn't care, isn't competing, because tangental to following their passion, they happen to get something we only enjoy because we're taught it will make us important, or desirable... like the kids on here who want a lambo... literally, medicine sucks ****ing **** if you don't care... being a political lobbyist sucks **** if you don't care... doing anything hard sucks if you don't care... before people say well, we can't all be lobbyists who make a difference, or leaders in our fields... being a doctor is the probabilistically safe way to make money... lol, it's not, medicine is a **** way to make money, I would make more in law in 4 years, unquestioned... i hear the responses already... doctors have government salaries... they're guaranteed... yeah, i really give a **** about what I want to accomplish, hence, being in the top 1 percentile isn't hard within the fields I'm passionate about, law students are well, not too challenging in my opinion, not regarding any valuative statement... if you wanna finnish bottom of your class, don't give a ****, want to make cash, do medicine, be quiet about your views... or give bad speeches... if you want to do something of extrememe significance (and you don't have to, just don't assume others are in the same rat race and that them saying well, an MPH from Hopkins would be cool, if well, you want to be the next Piaget, love developmental psychology, it's easy... just like surgery is easy for some... the concept is ubquitous... if you want to be mediocre, stay away from serious people, as in, don't assume they have the same insecurities or play by the same rules, or that talking about their skills is bragging, or bull****... I don't need someone to tell me I'm a good public speaker... 4 years of doing it twice a week... I know I'm good, and I wouldn't have done it if it served no purpose in my goals in life, why waste your time.

 

Anyways, main points, if you give a ****, give a **** about what you give a **** about, don't *****, do, and if you do, don't embarass, conquer, work harder, if you give a ****, it should be worth it.

 

Please help change Canada... raise children who question things, who believe in themselves, who don't live in what seems a caste system of pre-delegated right to question authority. Also, don't think buying into the caste paradigm and dialing into a nice cast will mean you're inherantly this or that, a few people criticiszed me for seeming arrogant, well, regarding issues I give a **** about, forget the formalities... as a perceived authority of health, your ignorance has consequences in the general populations perception of truth... to the dude who called me arrogant for criticizing his definition of pseudoscience... I wouldn't if that very broad statement was backed up by more than... well, backed up by even one line. I'm not worried about myself, but others who believe initial delegated authorities statements... if you have grade 10 ed, you may believe that social anxiety disorder is scientific, rather than a patent extension attempt for a new treatment clause on an expiring SSRI, and there's well, an indirect incentive to propogating this false authority, there's no direct kickback, but well, the money comes around eventually. Hopefully the psychologists tear psych up, the nurses get a bite into anesthesiology... if empirically, we can provide the same care for less, it's hypocritical to say the government is asleep at the wheel, while doctors benevolant advocate... taking the moral high ground before you know where the road ends can be perilous... so I'd also caution riteous self-deceptive selfless servants of humanity types not to jump on bandwagons.

 

Wow, that was preachy, but well, how could I not go on, showing off of course, lol (indeed, it's only showing of you know, I have no confidence in myself, and need internet approval...no not really, I'm good, sorry for not thinking I'm a statistic, or being intimidated by lazy peple with initials, guess I wasn't raised that way (only directed to a few people , most are really cool ))

 

Block of text warning

[Dr.Henderson]

rofl 1234

 

I was going to add that nobody should be assuming that this results in any cost savings (even with the miniscule savings on the federal budget). The emergency care that these patients will require when their conditions worsen due to not having access to preventative care will be far more expensive and will be absorbed by the provinces as they administer healthcare. The whole thing is completely illogical and that's the point that these physicians are trying to make. If you want to talk about childish antics, let's talk about someone meeting the government with a logical argument and being faced with the equivalent of a child with fingers in their ears saying "I can't heeeear youuuu".

[Legion]

Dr. Henderson for president.

 

Thumbs up if you agree (we really need to get a like button on this forum)

[future_doc]

Agreed. ..

[A Second Daniel]

Are you suggesting that a projected savings of 20 million dollars per year in a FEDERAL budget will save our economy from being Greece 2.0??? That's the projected savings from these cuts. Meanwhile we have a 22 billion dollar + military budget... These cuts will have absolutely zero bearing on the economy, any economist will tell you that.

 

Further, suggesting that no patient will die any time soon doesn't seem to jive with what the physicians in all of these articles have stated. People failing to get necessary preventative care and medication could easily result in death. In the article in this thread one of the physicians had a patient go without seizure medication and ended up being rushed to the emergency room. I would not be surprised in the least if these cuts eventually resulted in preventable deaths of patients.

 

If we implemented that philosophy in our financial planning, then there would be 0 in cuts and we would have already collapsed like Greece did. What's $20mil here and there anyways?

[Dr.Henderson]

If we implemented that philosophy in our financial planning, then there would be 0 in cuts and we would have already collapsed like Greece did. What's $20mil here and there anyways?

 

Quite frankly, that is reductio ad absurdum. The point is, why would you cut 20 million dollars from a vulnerable population on the one hand and then introduce an ill-advised crime bill that creates provisions for the creation of new prisons and infrastructure at a cost of BILLIONS of dollars? I could go on listing examples (military, conferences, delegate spending, etc).

 

I'm all for saving money and being financially responsible, but let's make cuts in areas that make sense and only after careful consideration and consultation with relevant stakeholders. That crime bill that will cost us billions is completely unnecessary and unlikely to yield any sort of positive effect according to criminologists, lawyers, and the U.S. where they have already seen that stiffer minimum sentences absolutely don't work.

 

"Saving" 20 million (or rather passing a much higher overall cost on to the province) while spending billions unnecessarily is hardly an indicator of fiscal responsibility.