apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 im ****ing tired of this, i've mention chronic psychosis 5 imes and no one cares... 8 percent of TOTAL ****ING BEDS... 30 percent false positive, i'll dig the longitudinal study even, 24 percent of beds plus the 20 managed on small dose antipsychotics... 1.6 percent... minus 300 a month for antipsychotics for 2.4 percent of the population... the other 50 percent can reduce relapse from 80 to 20 percent with community supports, recreation... to avoid acute hospitalizations... i know you care about refugees, but seriously, you're looking like an idiot... i support both causes, but this has been ignored 4-5 times and rofl... 1234... why don't you read something, you might learn how life works a bit... i've debated government leaders, that woman made an idiot of herself... she doesn't deserve any respect for being a doctor... she came in unprepared, unable to engage in dialogue in a manner that portrays authority, she was marginally aware of the issues at best... this is unacceptable...i would put nothing less than 50 hours of research prior... and well, the gov... theyre nothing, i've videotaped police, beat the **** out of numbers of huge companies... rcmp charged me, pissed their pants... i got a woman who barely spoke english off for predatory prosecutory oractices... sorry... this is politics... not medicine... you dont kiss your ass to top spots like med... you want to debate, you come out like usain bolt.... you have two minutes... he has no obligation to speak to you... but coercion works... humiliate him so badly, then insinuate extreme emotional suffering, that cameras draw notice, i've done stuff like this to the actualy cvollege of physicians... and believe me, no safety of gazing eyes... yeah, 200 hours of legal research.... think i had a problem with them, now theyre feraked by me... add to list of fido, rbc, mcdonalds... lovely u of a giving me a degree despite not having enough courses one year...the world doesn't owe you ****, if you want change, you better slave for it... you think you deserve the change, i know a doc who's spent 200 g in court costs to uncover ethical breaches... still feeling like a superhero 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Second Daniel Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 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 though 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. I'm not going to act in defence of our current government for everything they've done. Some things like the crime bill we absolutely need because there have been some high profile gun crimes as of late, especially in the Toronto region. Canada is way too lenient on crime (a lesson hides that we could learn from the US here). But you're arguing in a grey area when trying to justify costs for our military-what should the right number be? Certainly our government has made tremendous cuts in this area, amounting to several billion dollars recently, the budget won't break $22bil for sure. The effort is there and shouldn't be undercut by an arbitrary evaluation. What about total health care spending, which is 10 times that of the military budget? Same with federal jobs-thousands have been cut. Are jobless people not vulnerable too? Physicians aren't too vulnerable, so are cuts acceptable in their pay? Who should bite the bullet for the economic downturn, Canadians or non-Canadians? Do non-Canadians residing here deserve the same rights as Canadians do? If yes, then what does it mean to be Canadian? These are great questions that don't have comfortable answers because reality is far too complex imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 sorry, logic isn't good enough, i've given such anti-establishmentarian presentations, they're considered heresy in north america... but well, i dont care if people ethically agree with them, that's of no concern, patient interest is, so yeah, 2/40, i deserved 1, but i'll take it, because try and give me less, and you look like an idiot, i don't convince people i well, give them a choice, look like a zealot and ignore my 40 peer reviewed articles, or recognize my point, which is correct, in terms of patient outsomes... unless you want to run a school of theology... i better get recognition 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 summary: med school is a sheltered fantasyland whre black is white and vice verca, you dont have any privelage in the real world... the real world is cut throat, why would the government give you the chance, you need to coerce them... and the woman was embarassing, unprepared, and made dismissing her easy... try reading it... go to 6 words and you'll learn more psychiatry than an average attending can teach you... life's not simple, or easy, and doesnt come in 300 words... my ultimate ambition, is to change mental health practice in north america... that's not an easy endeavor... but why would it be... short cuts in life are secret routes... theyre just short paths... if you want to make a real difference, that block of text should seem like a tiny paragraph Block of text warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 honeslty, this is an embrassment i feel at times, i end almost all threads... it's as if people hate depth... they can't handle it, being a doctor means you can prescribe antiobiotics... you have no write or skill to garner public attention effectively... the way people systemically avoid responding to me makes me believe some very elite people in canadian medicine who told me i was too smart to be a doctor, bit too tenacious... it's like, 4 years public speaking, i've debated profs in front of 400 people... and i dont lost... i feel this sense of entitlement from medical students, as if they deserve to be heard, and anyone who disagrees is rude, im sorry, i worked in the inner city, gave faux paux presentations despite knowing i'd be targeted... ****, forget refugees, try standing up against crime and holding your ground... hmmm, couple arrests, helped non englsih speaking woman from coercian, stoped god knows how many suicides, pulled staples out arms, dealt with multiple personalities, diagnosed my own neuro condition... 5 friends commited suicide ****, i even teach refugees... i worked with alzheimers patients for 5 years, the mentall ill, funded a scholarships for schizophrenics, i havea finnished book sitting at home, lol all i got for caring was well, brutal intimidation, sometimes i feel like what people say about american schools is true, you wanna do fam med and get an md, stay here, you want to change paradigms... go to an ivey, cause well, i care too much... ever worked with a woman with a burned off face... fun stuff... and well, how should i put it, im not entitled to anything, but seriously, get in my way, and ill **** you up, as in, i dont deserve anything, i have god knows how many awards... 30 scholarships... two long term health care jobs... half med school... ive turned down 6 figure jobs... nsercs, etc. and well, not only can i talk neurophysiology like a boss... i can write... lol eve ghost writen peer reviewed articles... and my writing, it's not polite, just like my debating, unless the debate is formal, i don't go easy... god, i love professors who think they have a chance... im sorry, im nuts, i learned more in 6 years than most in 15.... because to me, i dont talk about refugees, mentally ill, yeah i live it... lol, you ever lend 5 g to support a buddy from an abusive home... caring is awesome until it costs you something, talk is cheap, action is the difference Block of text warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I hope I detect sarcasm. Canada has a great track record on refugee relations, and is a highly sought-after place to live. Absolutely no sarcasm. Canada is being awful toward refugees. I honestly believe what the government is attempting to perpetrate is disgusting and does not represent the views of informed Canadians who are decent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Do non-Canadians residing here deserve the same rights as Canadians do? If yes, then what does it mean to be Canadian? Refugees do deserve the same rights as Canadians. And what it means to be Canadian is to extend our hand of hospitality to refugees, and this includes giving them access to preventative medical care, housing and food, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm not going to act in defence of our current government for everything they've done. Some things like the crime bill we absolutely need because there have been some high profile gun crimes as of late, especially in the Toronto region. Canada is way too lenient on crime (a lesson hides that we could learn from the US here). But you're arguing in a grey area when trying to justify costs for our military-what should the right number be? Certainly our government has made tremendous cuts in this area, amounting to several billion dollars recently, the budget won't break $22bil for sure. The effort is there and shouldn't be undercut by an arbitrary evaluation. What about total health care spending, which is 10 times that of the military budget? Same with federal jobs-thousands have been cut. Are jobless people not vulnerable too? Physicians aren't too vulnerable, so are cuts acceptable in their pay? Who should bite the bullet for the economic downturn, Canadians or non-Canadians? Do non-Canadians residing here deserve the same rights as Canadians do? If yes, then what does it mean to be Canadian? These are great questions that don't have comfortable answers because reality is far too complex imo. I'll try to avoid going completely off topic here, but the crime bill is absolutely useless for a myriad of reasons. The serious crimes you're talking about will not be impacted by this bill, as has been evidenced by multiple studies showing that stiffer sentences do not act as deterrents to violent crimes. More people in jail? Yes. Less violent crimes occurring? No. The crime bill is not the solution- investing in prevention through better social programs and mental health and addictions probably would be far more effective than building more prisons and putting people away for longer. This is the crux of the argument by criminologists and lawyers, one that was ignored by the federal government. You're still not addressing the issues raised here. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a myriad of other places that you can take 20 million from and not have as devastating of an impact on peoples' health. I will tell you what should bite the bullet for an economic downturn LAST- and that's health, the most basic human need. You also still haven't addressed the fact that there is in actuality no chance of cost savings overall here: eventually many of these refugees will have to seek emergency care for their conditions when their preventative care has ceased. The provinces will pay for that emergency care, it will be far more expensive. How exactly does this help revive the economy? Honestly, on a forum dedicated to healthcare professions this is the last place I expected to have this argument. We're not just talking about "non-Canadians" residing here. We're talking about refugees- people who have come from war-torn or disaster stricken areas of the world and are in the most dire need of aid. If you accept refugees they should absolutely be afforded the same care as the citizens of your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 You're still not addressing the issues raised here. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a myriad of other places that you can take 20 million from and not have as devastating of an impact on peoples' health. I will tell you what should bite the bullet for an economic downturn LAST- and that's health, the most basic human need. You also still haven't addressed the fact that there is in actuality no chance of cost savings overall here: eventually many of these refugees will have to seek emergency care for their conditions when their preventative care has ceased. The provinces will pay for that emergency care, it will be far more expensive. How exactly does this help revive the economy? Honestly, on a forum dedicated to healthcare professions this is the last place I expected to have this argument. We're not just talking about "non-Canadians" residing here. We're talking about refugees- people who have come from war-torn or disaster stricken areas of the world and are in the most dire need of aid. If you accept refugees they should absolutely be afforded the same care as the citizens of your country. Yes. ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 how are you going to adress ministers... you can't even adress me, albeit I consider myself more challenging than the avergae minister... I'll try to avoid going completely off topic here, but the crime bill is absolutely useless for a myriad of reasons. The serious crimes you're talking about will not be impacted by this bill, as has been evidenced by multiple studies showing that stiffer sentences do not act as deterrents to violent crimes. More people in jail? Yes. Less violent crimes occurring? No. The crime bill is not the solution- investing in prevention through better social programs and mental health and addictions probably would be far more effective than building more prisons and putting people away for longer. This is the crux of the argument by criminologists and lawyers, one that was ignored by the federal government. You're still not addressing the issues raised here. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a myriad of other places that you can take 20 million from and not have as devastating of an impact on peoples' health. I will tell you what should bite the bullet for an economic downturn LAST- and that's health, the most basic human need. You also still haven't addressed the fact that there is in actuality no chance of cost savings overall here: eventually many of these refugees will have to seek emergency care for their conditions when their preventative care has ceased. The provinces will pay for that emergency care, it will be far more expensive. How exactly does this help revive the economy? Honestly, on a forum dedicated to healthcare professions this is the last place I expected to have this argument. We're not just talking about "non-Canadians" residing here. We're talking about refugees- people who have come from war-torn or disaster stricken areas of the world and are in the most dire need of aid. If you accept refugees they should absolutely be afforded the same care as the citizens of your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 As I said: these cuts are only hurting a vulnerable population and are NOT saving any money- its simply shifting the cost to other authorities like provincial health authorities: Federal cuts that have left refugee claimants with little to no health coverage are expected to come at a high cost to Hamilton's health system... Health Minister Deb Matthews estimates caring for refugees cost $1.3 million at one Toronto hospital alone. Hamilton is also bracing to be hit hard as one of Ontario's top destinations for newcomers. Have a read: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/765306--cuts-to-refugee-claimant-care-costing-hamilton-s-health-system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 systemically do a cost analysis, study foreign disease... you can find the legislation... like psych, i don't read books, but patents... my point is, complaining fun, making a difference is hard, lol As I said: these cuts are only hurting a vulnerable population and are NOT saving any money- its simply shifting the cost to other authorities like provincial health authorities: Have a read: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/765306--cuts-to-refugee-claimant-care-costing-hamilton-s-health-system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Second Daniel Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 You also still haven't addressed the fact that there is in actuality no chance of cost savings overall here: eventually many of these refugees will have to seek emergency care for their conditions when their preventative care has ceased. The provinces will pay for that emergency care, it will be far more expensive. How exactly does this help revive the economy? This point is pure speculation. What are your sources for that prediction? Few of those refugees will legitimately need the medical attention that was cut, and even fewer will need further emergency attention as a result of their ongoing conditions...so the counter argument can be made just as easily since the number going to emergencies will be so low that you incur less costs overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 you know what, next time im in ontario, ill show up to one of these.. you'll recognize me, because well, people look bad after we talk, unfortunately... ministers, ive debated them before... debated... that's polite way of putting it... but well, this is pc central, someone could molest children and get re-elected... honestly... hire a lawyer instead of sending these chumps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 This point is pure speculation. What are your sources for that prediction? Few of those refugees will legitimately need the medical attention that was cut, and even fewer will need further emergency attention as a result of their ongoing conditions...so the counter argument can be made just as easily since the number going to emergencies will be so low that you incur less costs overall. It seems as though a lot of physicians and provincial politicians are speculating similarly: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/765306--cuts-to-refugee-claimant-care-costing-hamilton-s-health-system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 have you heard of dr. louis francescutti... hes well, an awesome guy, and we share very similar views, we think med students are mostly entitled babies.... he wants to do this throughout cnada, cut physician salaries by 30 percent you're solutions are overly general, lacking detail and hard numbers... believe me, take the discussion to a higher level, give me numbers, and you'll have a fun discussion please don't deer to indviduals with conflicting self interests either preventative care exists no where... seriously and seriously... the schizophrenics cost billions, you just look asinine now francescutti has well, what we call a professional report... soomething in more depth, out... personally i think docs need 30 percent pay cuts... no joke, we also need to be much more efficient, while stopping medical lobbies from interfering with cost saving adjunctive care which prevents maximum physician earnings... i'm sorry, this isn't at a level i'm capable of discussing I'll try to avoid going completely off topic here, but the crime bill is absolutely useless for a myriad of reasons. The serious crimes you're talking about will not be impacted by this bill, as has been evidenced by multiple studies showing that stiffer sentences do not act as deterrents to violent crimes. More people in jail? Yes. Less violent crimes occurring? No. The crime bill is not the solution- investing in prevention through better social programs and mental health and addictions probably would be far more effective than building more prisons and putting people away for longer. This is the crux of the argument by criminologists and lawyers, one that was ignored by the federal government. You're still not addressing the issues raised here. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a myriad of other places that you can take 20 million from and not have as devastating of an impact on peoples' health. I will tell you what should bite the bullet for an economic downturn LAST- and that's health, the most basic human need. You also still haven't addressed the fact that there is in actuality no chance of cost savings overall here: eventually many of these refugees will have to seek emergency care for their conditions when their preventative care has ceased. The provinces will pay for that emergency care, it will be far more expensive. How exactly does this help revive the economy? Honestly, on a forum dedicated to healthcare professions this is the last place I expected to have this argument. We're not just talking about "non-Canadians" residing here. We're talking about refugees- people who have come from war-torn or disaster stricken areas of the world and are in the most dire need of aid. If you accept refugees they should absolutely be afforded the same care as the citizens of your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 lol, 3 words, conflict of interest, please don't ever go into politics kiddo, lol It seems as though a lot of physicians and provincial politicians are speculating similarly: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/765306--cuts-to-refugee-claimant-care-costing-hamilton-s-health-system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Muse, I want to apologize for laughing at 1234 calling your post a block of text. Before deciding to reply to any of your posts I wanted to actually read through it and see what you had to say. While its far from reader-friendly, its very insightful. I think you'd reach a far greater audience on these forums if you threw in some paragraphing though. That is, if you care to reach that audience . Nonetheless, after I got into it I found it interesting and read it from start to finish. I haven't included detailed figures pertaining to my argument, nor have I fleshed out my proposed alternatives to the federal cuts to refugee healthcare because for one this is only a discussion board and further I won't even pretend to have the time to get into that much depth on this issue. Wife, child, and school take priority before social activism for me. If you're able to debate the way you say you can and would like to expose fallacies in the government's approach to healthcare funding, you've definitely got my support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 lol, 3 words, conflict of interest, please don't ever go into politics kiddo, lol Of course they have ulterior motives. However, the fact that costs will simply be passed from one government to another would be difficult to discredit would it not? If they're receiving care from a local hospital, someone has to pay for it. "Kiddo" doesn't really have any relevance in a discussion like this. I'm likely your age or older, I'm an old fart starting med Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 ...so the counter argument can be made just as easily since the number going to emergencies will be so low that you incur less costs overall. and needless deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Agreed, but as I have been following this issue and talking to patients and people in the community this trend is not specific to the Toronto Sun poll but reader polls wherever I have encountered them. It was fortuitous that they had run one given that was the source of the poll you sited. At any rate there are no published official polls that I have come across at this time but all the highly subjective evidence points to the fact that Canadians do not want to pay for refugee health care, you are the one who is making the stretch by assuming that because the federal conservatives are down a few points that somehow that translates into Canadians are upset with the governments direction on this issue. I intentionally didn't make a constructive point and I don't expect any physician to pay for advertising or set any precedents. At the same time I fail to see how this method of "public awareness" is constructive at all, which is the point we are addressing (personally I think we should continue funding for obvious fiscal reasons). The only thing these doctors are doing is bringing our profession down to the level of the children that interrupt school assemblies and teapartiers who shout slogans at townhalls. You say it is unreasonable to leave a practice and stage a protest, so are you saying that this method is simply a matter of convenience for these f-tards? They shouldn't have to sacrifice to get their point across? It is totally justified because instead of listening to "experts" the government is doing what it was elected to do? When you actually step inside a hospital and behind the scenes you are going to learn a few things 1) no two doctors agree on anything 2) an expert is someone with a shiny piece of paper who happens to agree with whatever point of view you have on an issue. If that's the consensus of the people you've encountered then I completely agree that doctors need to be engaging in public education in those areas. My poll results that I posted were more in support of my assertion that the Canadian people aren't happy with the federal government overall rather than to insinuate that they approve/disapprove of the handling of this particular issue. I'm not suggesting that this is a matter of convenience as physicians shouldn't be expected to close down their practice, but rather that many physicians shutting their doors for a day would have a significantly detrimental effect on both public health as well as public opinion of doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomSmasherXVIII Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 This is not the right way to do things and makes our profession look bad. Indeed. These doctors clearly don't understand that politics = money. Stunts like this just piss politicians off, and make them want to cut our funding even more (let's just be clear, this is about funding). The right way of going about doing this would be to donate $100,000 to the political campaigns of the government's competitors. That would be the equivalent of a swift kick to the balls of these government dogs... teaching them not to mess with us. But instead, we get a couple of socially-miscalibrated goofs embarassing themselves in front of the whole country. Interrupting a political announcement with a completely unrelated protest just shows low social intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Get a grip on reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Second Daniel Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Get a grip on reality. In all fairness, it's the people who think we can dish out money like it grows on trees that need to get a grip on reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NutritionRunner Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 What I keep hearing from people is this: there are many Canadians that don't have access to the kinds of health care benefits that refugees currently receive. There are many Canadians (especially the working poor) who can't afford their medication (and who don't qualify for government assistance with their medication), who can't afford new glasses, who can't afford to visit a dentist regularly. These are working Canadians who pay taxes. In some cases, they are retirees, who have paid into the system all their lives. So these people feel that it isn't "right" for these refugees to get all these benefits when there are Canadians who don't receive these same benefits; Canadians who pay taxes and who have paid taxes all their lives. Now, I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just presenting the viewpoint of many people that I've heard from regarding this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.