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.
The testing reqirements vary from state to state. Some states have reciprocity and will license based on having a license in another state. Others may have different requirements.
I doubt there are any more bad doctors in FL than in other states.
This is misleading. The USMLE (medical licensing exam) is the same no matter which state you are in. You get the same exact questions in Kentucky as you do in California. States only vary in how long they give you to pass it without requiring extra training for a license.
This is misleading. The USMLE (medical licensing exam) is the same no matter which state you are in. You get the same exact questions in Kentucky as you do in California. States only vary in how long they give you to pass it without requiring extra training for a license.
The question was about licensing, not examination.
It was just one of the first states to come up on Google.
So, even if you previously took and passed the USMLE, you might be required to retake it if some time has passed, even if you are licensed in another state.
It was just one of the first states to come up on Google.
So, even if you previously took and passed the USMLE, you might be required to retake it if some time has passed, even if you are licensed in another state.
This was the question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
What I'm confused about is - would a doctor, if he wanted to be licenses in two states, have to pass two different tests? Would they each have different criteria?
The answer is no. Not two different tests. I guess one could have to take the same test over again, but again, it wouldn't vary from state to state as the USMLE is standardized.
Also, I guess there may be a few states that may give you a problem, but most states are reciprocal these days. In fact, when you graduate residency, you can put all your paperwork into 1 file in 1 computer (The FCVS) and it stays there forever, so if you ever move to another state, you just have them forward all your info to the new state. This is accepted by most, if not all states.
Are you making an argument for the micro-chip? sounds like it.
If doctors don't know they need sleep, they sure don't know anything about health. Have you noticed that most hospital personnel are over-weight?
No
Quote:
That and many other reasons is why we need to take responsibility for our own health, and yes, supplements are part of that. Nutrition matters, and you can't eat enough to give you everything your body needs. Since your part of the system you so advocate, it's no wonder that you aren't aware. People need to grow their awareness and take responsibility.
Is that why you purchase overpriced useless junk from that quack, Mercola? I agree with suzy_q2010.
Is that why you purchase overpriced useless junk from that quack, Mercola? I agree with suzy_q2010.
Well, she has a point. Our food is tampered with and there is no concern at all about the effect it has on vitamin content.
Take tomatoes, for instance. Recently the gene was isolated which when turned (off or on) one way would result in a beautiful, fully red tomato. That gene was activated (or deactivated) but also resulted in a relatively tasteless tomato. In case anyone goes to the market these days they have to go to some specialty place that sells heirlooms.
Now, produce corporations certainly want a tasty tomato to sell, so if they overlook this crucial factor, do you really think they give a hoot about something the consumer can NOT test, like nutritional content?
Sadly, they do not.
I know that government run health care is anathema to a lot of people. My concern is that the current system gets monetary rewards when we, the public, become ill. A government run health care system would save money by keeping us healthy.
I don't know if things would pan out that way, but we really should have more doctors who take an interest in alternate therapies. There are no rewards in it today. Only doctors who can charge a lot in high price neighborhoods can afford to experiment with these other modalities, like magnetic therapy for pain. Doctor Hoffman in NYC is one of these doctors.
Columbia Presbyterian, I believe, has a group looking into such things.
I don't blame doctors for thinking the way they do. I also agree that a lot of 'alternate' people can easily take advantage of the public.
I know that I had a problem with varied symptoms that I went to about four different specialists for and each found some 'solution' that was in his field. I ended up, in desperation, going to Atkins and in two weeks I was fine. No, it was not related to his diet.
I think India is probably superior now with US hospitals who are staffed with nurses sitting in front of computers, not washing their hands and giving crappy care. I recently attended a conference with doctors who complained that the attending RNs knew nothing about the patients when they called in.......ie, I gave that patient meds 4 hours ago, haven't seen him/her since.
Well, she has a point. Our food is tampered with and there is no concern at all about the effect it has on vitamin content.
Take tomatoes, for instance. Recently the gene was isolated which when turned (off or on) one way would result in a beautiful, fully red tomato. That gene was activated (or deactivated) but also resulted in a relatively tasteless tomato. In case anyone goes to the market these days they have to go to some specialty place that sells heirlooms.
Now, produce corporations certainly want a tasty tomato to sell, so if they overlook this crucial factor, do you really think they give a hoot about something the consumer can NOT test, like nutritional content?
Sadly, they do not.
I know that government run health care is anathema to a lot of people. My concern is that the current system gets monetary rewards when we, the public, become ill. A government run health care system would save money by keeping us healthy.
I don't know if things would pan out that way, but we really should have more doctors who take an interest in alternate therapies. There are no rewards in it today. Only doctors who can charge a lot in high price neighborhoods can afford to experiment with these other modalities, like magnetic therapy for pain. Doctor Hoffman in NYC is one of these doctors.
Columbia Presbyterian, I believe, has a group looking into such things.
I don't blame doctors for thinking the way they do. I also agree that a lot of 'alternate' people can easily take advantage of the public.
I know that I had a problem with varied symptoms that I went to about four different specialists for and each found some 'solution' that was in his field. I ended up, in desperation, going to Atkins and in two weeks I was fine. No, it was not related to his diet.
So far, most treatments have been found to not be all that great.
I am in favor of a UHC system, but I don't think it will do a lot for prevention. JMO on this.
Oh, Kat, in the first part of the very first article it is said that organics are lower in pesticides.
It also said regular food is within safety guidelines, but a lot of people think those guidelines are written by the chemical industry.
I worked in a lab once, a long time ago, that did testing of products going on the market. They needed to meet certain guidelines for bacteriological claims in advertising. There was no way that this (household name) company's new product had germicidal action.
My boss would not 'pass' this product, which tested poorly.
I cannot tell you how many calls (and trips) went back and forth with the FDA on that little baby. First they tried bribes, many of them. Then they called the CEO of our company, asking that my boss be fired. It was a nightmare.
But my boss got his way. He did not pass the product and he kept his job.
I cannot believe that things have gotten better for the public since then. If anything they are probably worse.
So, please don't bore me with 'government standards' because I venture they are not in our best interests.
No, I will not waste more of my precious life reading further since the start was so dismal.
Oh, and you notice that I made no mention of preferring organic over inorganic. I think, on the whole, they use the same crappy doctored up seeds, except for heirlooms (at least when I grew my own heirlooms they were out of this world).
I am very upset about this tomato problem. I used to be able to at least get plums that tasted and smelled like they are supposed to. No more. Just grape tomatoes, which are way too sweet for me, and Campari brand are of any use. Even a lot of canned tomatoes (even brands like Pomi, from Italy) many times are nice and red, with no flavor and are highly acidic - maybe they add acid but the flavor of GOOD tomatoes masked it in the past.
Last edited by goldengrain; 09-09-2012 at 05:28 PM..
^^Well, you certainly don't have to educate yourself on this organic issue.
Sorry you're having a problem finding the perfect tomato for you.
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.
