birdog1960

didn't say it was in their best interests but maybe it's in society's. someone suggested cutting off loans for certain majors. wouldn't it make more sense to cut it off to underperforming schools? is that idea any more likely to meet opposition than the former? from some estimates, over 50% of americans have attended college. by necessity, this must include some average or below students. cut off loans to schols that accept such students and you have a ready and effective solution. and a college degree means something again...

it's not that they're easy to slap around, it's that they're so counterintuitive to most of the mindsets here that they feel compelled to attempt to quell them. there are plenty of recent humanities and social science grads who have succeeded financially and professionally. many went to top schools but i didn't realize that there was a stipulation placed on which schools the students attended attached to the assertion that nonscience majors are wasting their time and money. some are, some aren't. i contend that much has to do with their innate ability and drive. the solution here is more likely tightening admission policies (and perhaps not considering schools with poor placement records- not that i like roi calculation in education but they exist for universities, too) than limiting majors. i contend that you're concentrating on the wrong problem.

yeah, what did all us folks actually trained in medicine do before all you invaluable IT people came around and saved us? hell, we aren't even needed, right? just use diagnostic programs, treatment algorithms and robots for surgery, right? um, well, NO! essentially no one believes we are anywhere near this point. how did we ever manage patients without you? (hint -many of us had great outcomes with paper charts). Do you actually have data that supports the contention that IT has improved patient outcomes as an independent variable? i've seen some negative data. my impression is that the jury is still out...but i'm sure in your narrow, biased, self congratulatory mind, it's a slam dunk.and if you objectively believe that tasker "schooled me" on lawyers from what is documented in this thread, then your opinion is worthless...but most here already knew that.

uh huh, these folks all received BA's from schools with strong liberal arts traditions: mitt romney (english), gw bush (history), barack obama (poli sci), hillary clinton (poli sci) and there's plenty more examples at the top of many fields other than govt...ya think they all wasted their time pusuing those degrees?

as i said, not so much on ppp...

without diversity in education, we risk this sad result that the japanese are currently experiencing to the detriment of their entire economy: http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2012/10/10/japans-lost-art-of-innovation/. automatons are not generally innovative.

i went to a liberal arts undergrad school. the mantra there was "learn to think". not learn to memorize formulas and equations that you'll forget the day after the test but learn how to reason out the solutions long after they've been forgotten. i think it's proven a successful approach for generations of students. many of my classmates that majored in humanities have ended up in successful careers in law, finance, business, government (yup, even on the national stage, the best known a republican ! gasp) and the arts. many of those majoring in the sciences can write and speak very well and have at least a basic knowledge of the humanities (cue the insults directed at me). do we really want to produce only technical graduates from our universities? i don't think so. we need left and right brained folks studying together. it widens their horizons (lord knows, we have folks with narrow horizons around) and fosters innovation. in college, it's often stimulating and inspiring to discuss difficult problems with others that seem wired to think in a different manner. not so much on ppp. in any model, i will emphasize again the need for admission selectivity. as a teaching assistant at a large public university, i tried to teach chemistry to kids who didn't understand fractions. that's not fair to any of the students or to society. it supports unrealistic expectations and it wastes time and resources.

while i agree that there should be more emphasis placed on skills and trades at polytechnic, technical schools, apprenticeships etc., does anyone really believe that we don't need universities to produce experts in things like engineering, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, physics, geology and yes, psychology? harder sell to this crowd, but i'd argue they're needed to produce exceptional writers and social scientists among other positions important to society. i also think admission criteria need to be much stricter. the main reason i see for dilution of the value of some college degrees is that they're too easy to obtain at some schools and it's way too easy to be admitted. graduating college should be an accomplishment that requires above average intelligence and hard work. too often, that's not the case. but i see no reason that changes can't be made to universities in the name of efficiency and cost. 2 years at a community college followed by 2 at a traditional university works well for many kids. why not make it a program option? more inexpensive internet courses especially at the introductory level should be widely available.. oh, and we need higher education to produce teachers, even those overpaid commie professors.

had an older gentleman come in for a medicare wellness exam recently. i explained that it was a new benefit of the ACA to which he made some disparaging comment. i explained that it was optional and we could deal only with ongoing issues if he preferred. nope. let's do the wellness exam...strange when ideology and reality meet.

the only facts presented in this debate were my citation from the ABA which confirmed that 63% of american attorneys are in solo or small group practices (regardless of the size of the community that they practice in) and the approximate mean income of american attorneys. like most other discussions here, most all "premises" stated are based on opinion and this argument was no different. personal experience is relevant if it's substantial and i'd characterize mine as that. i've lived in major cities as well as rural areas. no other data was presented here, including the ridiculous story that b man linked from drudge which was linked from brietbart, i believe( the self perpetuating echo chambers of neocon propaganda that they are). That silly link precipitated the entire mind numbing discussion. it made the stupid conclusion that med students weren't choosing primary care because of the ACA. but for even more flawed opinion, look at the posts flatly (and rudely and mechanically) stating that there are no generalist lawyers. if we can't agree that those were incorrect, then black is white and white is black to those i'm trying to engage in debate with here and it's futile. pretty certain that's the case.

from a member of the chorus, i see that as unnecessary affirmation. from the aba, i see confirmation: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/march_april/gpsolo_main_street_lawyers.html. it appears tasker has labelled a majority of american lawyers as ambulance chasers. i can't agree with that characterization from personal experience. my suspicion is that he has precious little of that.

arrogant and uninformed is a sorry combination. being unable to admit when you're obviously wrong to anyone with any insight into the issue is a sign of ignorance, not strength. i'm sure you'll get the support of some of the chorus here to egg you on, however. it's not flattering to you or them.

i'm saying definitively that you are wrong in trying to make an analogy between attorneys and physicians pay structures...but i'm so happy that you know what a white shoe firm is now.

no, i'm referring to the profession, in general. you were wrong, though that's usually the case. over 100 lawyers in my town and i know quite a few. while i don't know they're exact salaries, i can make a pretty good guess. there are likely a very few on the top and bottom and very many in the middle. and while the "white shoe lawyers" are largely a thing of the past (they were overtaken by the less prestigious lawyers willing to take mergers and acquisition cases before it was considered socially acceptable) there are still some very big players but they're no where near being in the majority. this is in no way analagous to the pay scale in medicine that is largely a dichotomy.

really baby einsteins? what this http://general-practice.lawyers.com/. don't have time to look but i believe this is the largest group of american lawyers. and while there are a few rock star, very highly paid lawyers, a large majority with similar experience fall in a fairly narrow salary range with a median income of about $110k. but prove me wrong on this issue or at least try to again.

well, that's very informative. now, how about the part about the specialists outnumbering the generalists and the average disparity in pay between the various specialties and generalists.

you really don't know much about what happens in and around hospitals do you? necessity? do you realize how many tests and procedures of questionable or even negative value are done every day.? done without compelling evidence of benefit and sometimes with compelling evidence of harm. if your hammer is a catheter you do lots of caths. a scalpel, lots of surgery. a radiology suite, lots of xrays. (the number of CT scans done last year is staggering, somewhere around 1 for every 4 americans or so). hospitals spend fortunes on new revenue producing technology with little or no evidence of benefit every day (there are very few cardiology tests of proven survival benefit, for example).and your analogies don't hold up. you didn't cite any professions where specialists outnumber generalist with that wide of pay disparities. consultants? try telling many engineers that the move to consultants jobs has been good for their profession. many are now pining for the good old days of a steady job at a steady company. interesting theory tying food preferences to intrinsic value tho. maybe you should try publishing that somewhere other than tbd.

no it won't. private insurance was out of reach for an ever expanding portion of the population before the aca. it will only get worse and fairly soon will price itself out of the market to the majority of americans. guess what will fill the void? nonsense. draw an analogy to another profession where the majority of workers are specialists and routinely make multiples of generalists. architects? lawyers? engineers? nope, not even close. this is a unique and damaging situation. specialists make more in part because they cost more. and the concentration of them in our system hasn't produced better outcomes than more primary care based systems. the old saying that "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" holds in medicine, too. surprise, surprise...a system with many proceduralists does many more expensive procedures.

as i said you lack the ability for empathy. it doesn't require mental gymnastics or being an ideologue to empathize. you only need imagine another perspective. i don't believe you can.

got a few minutes to read this and respond. no, i'm not claiming individuals always act in their own best interests....but large groups almost always do. or at least what they believe to be their own best interests. and large groups decide national elections.now the white knight versus slave master comes down to perspective. the same law that is perceived as white knight by one group might be viewed as slave master to another. higher unemployment benefits, food stamps and subsidized health care would be seen as white knight actions by the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised. but as slave master actions by some of those those paying for those benefits through taxes. no surprise that you only see it from one perspective.

yup. it costs more to eat healthy. and policies seem counterproductive - why not subsidize local production of green vegetables and fruits rather than subsidizing giant agribusiness produced corn and fcs? but we know why...still, even if peas and cabbage and lettuce and spinach were given out free i'm not certain that would do away with much obesity. people crave their salt, fat and sugar. just about every chain restaraunt is built on this fact. oh, and i should have said perimeter excluding the bakery i suppose.

no, i'm arguing that the electorate knew that they were electing a champion of healthcare reform to the highest office in the country. they knew he would expend every effort to get it done and thus by extension were voting for healthcare reform. and what they voted for was accomplished. if they had not voted for obama, it would not have been. thus the majority electorate had a major influence on passage of the law, as it should be. but you're arguing that it's somehow violent to inflict this law on the citizens despite these facts. i say it's not. it was a choice made by the electorate. elections have consequences.

on both counts? obama was elected twice and by a sizable majority of the electorate both times while running on a promise of dramatic healthcare reform. his opponents were against this. do you dispute this? the will of the majority was carried out.

where have a mentioned a threat of violence. you and i obviously have different definitions of that word. i'm guessing yours comes from some liberterian dictionary or treatise.

the answer is that i believe a majority of my fellow citizens will never choose such things. they are not in their best interest.yes, laws are necessary and enforcement is necessary. violence is not - you guys are so dramatic! so i guess we've come back around to your contention that we shouldn't have any laws because enforcement would require "violence".