For example, this GOP Congressman on MSNBC right now blasting Chuck Schumer for calling the bill "mean."

Ummm...Schumer was quoting Trump when he said it.

EDIT: LOL pony both fast and slow.

Hey Fly - long time no see

Truth is in the eye of the beholder, yes? I commented on a Nevada bill that got shot down by the governor because it was basically a "free ponies for all" sort of bill that on closer examination required people with no money to pay for the pony, didn't provide for feeding or care of the pony, and there wasn't anywhere to ride your goddam pony anyway. It would have required the guy over there who is already struggling to make ends meet to feed your pony until he went broke and he got his farm taken away. Somehow this turned into evil doctors pocketing tax dollars. Which I objected to.

But yeah, whatever.

MM MD

There is s super trumpkin forum I read occasionally, I imagine it's similar to chiefsplanet, though I've never visited chiefs planet. On there, they recently floated the idea of Trump supporting single payer as a **** you to Ds because then Ds would be forced to oppose it.... LOL There is very little support for the AHCA on there, so instead they are focusing on the violent left, climate chsnge denial, Pelosi, and how offensive Pride celebrations are.

And just to be clear on my last rant - if that bill had passed I would have INCREASED MY INCOME. The bill would have led to less access to care for people who already have very limited choices in where to go - which is why Sandoval killed it. But in the short term, I would have made more money.

MM MD

As far as the ones that are physicians are concerned, no one takes a practicing physician and just makes them a CEO, the way you're implying. Obviously, that would be idiotic.

Generally, the career arc is to start in one of these large groups as a full time clinician and over the years transition to a job with more administrative responsibilities. After about a decade of this, the doc has a lot of experience in the business side of running a megagroup and is probably spending very little if any time practicing clinical medicine. For those who are really interested in the CEO/high-level executive track, they will almost universally go to business school at some point during this time (likely some sort of executive MBA with evening classes that they can do while working almost full-time)

Someone who follows this career path is not really going to be CEO material until they're in their 40s (at best). At that point, they should have the education and experience to be able to do the job well. Whether they actually do a good job is a different issue.

Yeah, that's on the money.

I was chief of my group for eight years, then VCOS and COS of the hospital. More meetings more admin responsibilities, less clinical time. When I was done with COS there was some discussion about me becoming chief medical officer, but it didn't happen because
1) I'm old - I started in medicine late, and it just wasn't something I wanted to take on. I also don't like the idea of solving problems for two or three years at a time, which would have been as long as I would have done it.
2) I would have had to REALLY ramp up my admin/business skills, which would have at a minimum required a lot of study and at worst one of those exec. MBA courses.
3) It would have been a pay cut for more hours worked - if I was planning on climbing the corporate banana tree it would have been worth it, but I'm not, mostly because I'm old.

As Melkerson noted, it's a career path that you really have to start on pretty early if you want to run a system. If I was 15 years younger I would have considered it - it's interesting stuff.

MM MD

GOP calling out Coway lies on cuts.

Are you a no then? Welp, I need the cbo to let me know how many olds and poor will die first. My line is 30k deaths.

http://shareblue.com/kellyanne-conwa...y-gop-senator/

The GOP is straight up bold faced lying all over the place



https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/879000887171088385

#3 above is a factor that actually selects against the ones that would actually be the best at it. The following is a massive over-generalization, but here goes:

Generally speaking the sharpest docs will do the best in medical school and eventually pursue the highest paying specialties. These guys are very smart and with the right on-the-job training would probably make the best CEOs and physician executives.

However, these guys well see the most massive pay drop when they stop seeing patients and try to follow the admin track. And unless they make it to CEO, they're probably making more money just practicing their specialty. Anything short of being the absolute top guy, and they're probably making less (and remember they gave up a lot of income just to get to that point).

Once again, the above is a massive generalization. There are tons of exceptions to literally everything I posted, nevertheless, the broad strokes are true.

Some value yes. But not enough if there is even a fairly small chance that the person you are criticizing doesn't deserve it.

The more general point is that you risk losing people on the fence not because you insult them but rather because you were erroneous. Most people don't know enough about issues to decide for themselves. Instead they rely on what they hear from those who are debating those issues. So if one side says that 2+2=5 (instead of the world's greatest internet site) or that Trump advocates sexual assault (instead of merely bragging that some woman throw themselves at him), they start to think that those people might be wrong about the issue in question as well.

How many crimes do you recommend we downplay in order to appease ignorant people? Serious question.

These women threw themselves at him? Each quote is a different woman. There are more.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37641814

I was talking only about the reaction to the tape, not the other accusations. In any case it was just an example of the more general point that exaggerating to the point of being obvious erroneous is counter productive if you have right on your side.

Also you aren't trying to "appease" people. You are trying to get their vote. And as I wrote previously, that means treating elections similar to a blackjack tournament rather than a contest to see who is the best counter. Counters are big underdogs in tourneys to tournament experts who barely know basic strategy.

Being raped as a pre existing condition
Don't have to cover pregnancy
Don't have to cover mental illness
Lifetime caps, i.e. sick people murdered

What am I missing

As a woman and a survivor of several sexual assaults, I've read a lot of things over the years that have made me question my relationship with 2+2. Having the owner of the site say that a man boasting about getting away with nonconsensually grabbing women by the pussy is actually an example of women throwing themselves at the man crosses a line. $100 freeroll to first person who catches me posting anywhere on 2+2. No expiration date.

Gg, gl all.

Nobody is talking about exaggerating.

WaPo clocked Trump at nearly 500 lies in 5 months. Not as a candidate, but as POTUS. Not behind the scenes, but to the public. Not exaggerations, but blatant untruths.

Your argument about getting voters is worrisome though. It's saying that a politician should do whatever it takes to win, legal or illegal, as long as the consequences are less than the victory. I question what kind of a person that makes you.

David a common issue you seem to have is getting upset that people who do know what they are talking about use their knowledge to form opinions different from those you formed without any knowledge.

Also you're even wrong about just the ****ing tape for Christ's sake. You got to pick your own ****ing examples to support your (entirely fictional) theory of being nice to right wingers and you went to bat for


1) Donald Trump(huge surprise! Everyone was stunned! David defending Trump? That happens only literally every ****ing time he mentions Daddy)

2) Sexual assault! For ****'s sake.

Literally nobody has ever switched their vote to a side that they DISAGREED WITH because the side they AGREED WITH used hyperbole.


Instead, as we just see over and ****ing over, you're a right winger who doesn't like it when people disagree with right wingers, and so you are like the 80th different person to clue the libtards in to the One Simple Trick to Getting Trump Voters Back: agree with them about ****ing everything.

Jesus Dave, please just go troll BFI or SE or somewhere else for a while instead of politics. Valued posters are walking away because of your toxic ****.

They could technically do this. By allowing coverage to be gutted and crushing the money states get for Medicaid it could be true and still devastating.

I want to say I appreciate your perspective and input in this thread.

hobbes - at what age did you get your start in medicine?

Try telling David that THIS is what happens once that kind of person becomes President for 5 months:

I never said anything about being nice to right wingers. I said don't overplay your hand to the point where you might be making an error because that might hurt more than it helps as far as uneducated, on the fence, voters who can spot that error is concerned.

Again I was only talking about the tape, not the allegations against him.

Meanwhile how do you explain 52% of white woman forgiving him? Especially considering that 52% is not really the correct number. The 48% who voted against him did it mainly for other reasons. Had he espused Bernie Sanders positions, almost all of them would have forgiven him as well. So again I say that it is an exaggeration to claim he thinks it is OK to sexually assault someone. Woman would seem to agree.