Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really. I've seen women DIE from this problem, in this first world country where we could be doing so much better. And here is what happens to women in the third world, when the first world who funds them, already has such a discrepancy in care:
Quote:
Women’s wombs are inflated with bicycle pumps. Some are paid as little as 600 rupees – about $10 – to be sterilized. Some see – and feel – doctors pull shreds of their organs from their abdomens during procedures. Doctors reuse gloves and needles for dozens of surgeries. Antibiotics or painkillers, if used, may be tainted with rat poison.
These are just a few of the details about India’s “family planning” programs that have emerged in the wake of the latest population control tragedy: the deaths in November of 14 women at a government sponsored sterilization “camp” in central India where health officials’ reports say 83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.
PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America’s foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades.
A Harvard-trained woman nearly killed me when she refused to believe that my chest pain was anything more than a 'pulled muscle'.
I have had a number of other female doctors since then, and I have not noticed any improvement over male doctors.
I am inclined to believe that the standard of care has fallen (in general) with 'production line' medicine induced by insurance based programs.
The decline in medical care actually began with medical schools having to do the demographic "quota" thing, starting about 45 years ago. HCFA in 1983 suddenly cut doctors allowable charges sometimes in half. That drove the rocket scientist types away, to boot. The "art" part of Medicine is now all but history. I see many of you have noticed.
The decline in medical care actually began with medical schools having to do the demographic "quota" thing, starting about 45 years ago. HCFA in 1983 suddenly cut doctors allowable charges sometimes in half. That drove the rocket scientist types away, to boot. The "art" part of Medicine is now all but history. I see many of you have noticed.
The decline in medical care actually began with medical schools having to do the demographic "quota" thing, starting about 45 years ago. HCFA in 1983 suddenly cut doctors allowable charges sometimes in half. That drove the rocket scientist types away, to boot. The "art" part of Medicine is now all but history. I see many of you have noticed.
This is very important information. I've never heard this before. Could you elaborate? How is what I take to be an insurance matter (cutting doctors' allowable charges) related to medical schools doing "the demographic quota thing"? What's "the quota thing"?
This is very important information. I've never heard this before. Could you elaborate? How is what I take to be an insurance matter (cutting doctors' allowable charges) related to medical schools doing "the demographic quota thing"? What's "the quota thing"?
Thank you so much.
I'm going to guess that it has something to do with using criteria other than intelligence and actual qualifications in selection. If it's what I am thinking, it is a problem that *I* ran into when I was trying to get on a municipal police department over a span of four years. I took the Civil Service test twice, maxed it with a perfect score both times without even using the extra points I could have had for being a vet. In addition to military service, I had other relevant qualifications and experience, education in college, etc.
I should have been a primo candidate. But, do you think I could get hired? No way, Jose. Later, I had to work with cops who were dumber than the proverbial box of rocks. They were selected for reasons *other* than being 'qualified' for the job. Do I need to say anything more?
This is very important information. I've never heard this before. Could you elaborate? How is what I take to be an insurance matter (cutting doctors' allowable charges) related to medical schools doing "the demographic quota thing"? What's "the quota thing"?
Thank you so much.
My understanding about the “quota thing” was that it was the opposite of a regular quota, so I don’t know what that poster is talking about. In the past, schools took certain non-white, non-Christian male groups, but only a set number- like 10% white women, 5 Jewish men, 3 African American men, etc. That started in the 19th century. Eventually they ended that and moved more to a merit-based application process instead of artificially limiting people. I am not sure how the quality of medicine is improved by limiting the number of women to 10 and totally excluding non-white women.
I'm going to guess that it has something to do with using criteria other than intelligence and actual qualifications in selection. If it's what I am thinking, it is a problem that *I* ran into when I was trying to get on a municipal police department over a span of four years. I took the Civil Service test twice, maxed it with a perfect score both times without even using the extra points I could have had for being a vet. In addition to military service, I had other relevant qualifications and experience, education in college, etc.
I should have been a primo candidate. But, do you think I could get hired? No way, Jose. Later, I had to work with cops who were dumber than the proverbial box of rocks. They were selected for reasons *other* than being 'qualified' for the job. Do I need to say anything more?
Right.I've seen it posted elsewhere on this forum/website, that police departments don't want cops that are too smart. This is why it can pay to contest tickets, depending on the circumstances. But I would think, that in order to slog through 7 years of med school, and all the science, including chemistry, involved, you'd have to be pretty smart.
My understanding about the “quota thing” was that it was the opposite of a regular quota, so I don’t know what that poster is talking about. In the past, schools took certain non-white, non-Christian male groups, but only a set number- like 10% white women, 5 Jewish men, 3 African American men, etc. That started in the 19th century. Eventually they ended that and moved more to a merit-based application process instead of artificially limiting people. I am not sure how the quality of medicine is improved by limiting the number of women to 10 and totally excluding non-white women.
Maybe the poster didn't intend those two factors I put together, to be related or cause/effect. Maybe they were simply listing separate issues relevant to the general complaint about women's concerns not being taken seriously, requests for testing/scans/x-rays being refused, and so forth.
Cutting back on doctors' allowable charges (the quantity) wouldn't explain why men's concerns do result in testing and treatment, though. If there were an across-the-board cutback, it shouldn't get bunched up among the non-White male population.
Maybe the poster didn't intend those two factors I put together, to be related or cause/effect. Maybe they were simply listing separate issues relevant to the general complaint about women's concerns not being taken seriously, requests for testing/scans/x-rays being refused, and so forth.
Cutting back on doctors' allowable charges (the quantity) wouldn't explain why men's concerns do result in testing and treatment, though. If there were an across-the-board cutback, it shouldn't get bunched up among the non-White male population.
The reaction to the quota system was to allow race to be used as one factor in admissions, but not the only factor. However, it was not a quota system like the old system where 20 slots were set aside for women/minorities/non-Christians. The reality of a system where people don’t represent you is that patients have a distrust in the medical community and medical care isn’t as effective. If it comes down to someone who is 2% better with medical skill/intelligence vs. another person who is 50% better than the other at listening and relating to the patient, I would rather go with the person who is 50% better at listening and relating because she’ll be more likely to get the patient’s history in a way to be able to diagnose the problem correctly. Those soft skills go a long way in medicine.
To some extent this can feel like hammer and nail type argument based on a couple anecdotal reports. When we look at total death rates, men are actually more likely to die from it. That obviously doesn't prove that their isn't a bias against women when it comes to Covid treatment. But, it does cut against the argument that women are uniquely burdened by Covid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
