Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Seth Piepgrass
Recent Activity
-
Seth commented on the article |While it may be a good idea, for any hospital it would be a hard sell, having someone who is not a doctor or a med student essentially practicing medicine, especially for training purposes. While I agree having military personnel rotate through trauma centers is a great idea in theory, to any hospital it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen, and probably wouldn't be worth another hike in malpractice insurance. Best they could do is observe and when you might be pulling bullets out of people observation is great but it doesn't really make for great training.
Human cadavers really don't meet the bill; 1) not enough of them to go around as it is, add them for military training and you make a small supply almost nonexistent 2) still not going to be like living tissue. Cadavers don't profuse like living tissue, so if you are training you can get the texture of living flesh but it is still dead tissue and won't behave like live tissue.
As soon as a suitable simulation is available I'm all for it but we aren't there yet, not by a long shot. Sure it would be great if we could get good results without animal testing but until we get there I would rather our military use animals for training rather than go into the field unprepared.
-
Seth commented on the article |
Interestingly enough I work for a University that got a mass email from a member of PETA, not too dissimilar from this article. It was talking about how we use animals and how we should use simulations because they are supposedly superior to animal testing and such... well the truth is that while there are some great simulators (and getting better every year) we still can't replicate living tissue. I have seen our simulators at our university and they are very good for some situations (simulating what meds to give and when they work exceptionally well) but for messy, fleshy trauma situations the rubbery skin of a simulator dummy just isn't a viable alternative. While I believe that no animal should be harmed technology isn't there yet. When we can accurately simulate a trauma I'm all for using the better tool but for now the simulators don't cut it.
-
Seth commented on the article |Got to play devils advocate on this one, there is a difference between a sexual predator and someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. I know couples who are happily married now that one would be a sex offender because they were married when he was 20 and she was 16. What about the college kid who had a lapse in judgement and got charged with public indecency, guess what, no medical licence for you... bet you regret flashing that meter maid now don't you! All I am saying is differentiate between actual predators and people who just messed up.
-
Seth commented on the article |ok so with a little off the cuff math let's say your numbers are accurate, that is 9 million people collecting from pell grants. Even if the average payout is only $2,500.00 that is $22,500,000,000. That is a ton of money we are on the hook for. The harsh reality is that we have to cut back spending NOW. Sure it it going to hurt but better a big hurt now than a crippling hurt later. I don't want to do to my kids what our parents have done to us with this debt. I cut all my credit cards up this year. I live within my means and on less than $23,000 a year that is not much but I do it and there is no reason that the government can't do the same.
-
Seth commented on the article |
One little detail you forgot to mention. WE ARE FREAKING BROKE. We have been spending money we don't have for longer than many of us have been alive and reality needs to set in. What people fail to realize is that a college education doesn't go as far as it used to, never mind that the return on investment has been steadily declining as the cost of education increases in relation to the rate of inflation. By putting "free" money (not really free, someone else pays the dollar amount plus administrative costs) in taxes in the equation the government has added fuel to the fire, creating an an artificial bubble market in education. Since grants and scholarships rarely cover all the expenses students take out loans, loans that can never not be paid back (bankruptcy doesn't wipe out these debts). So in the end out have a system that does not benefit the students,after all a more costly education doesn't equate to a better education. it does however benefit the various educational institutions by letting them charge more than people would regularly be able to afford and benefits the companies selling student loans because no matter if you get that good paying job (and these days those are getting harder and harder to come by) or not you have to pay back those loans, Uncle Sam says so!
How about this, let's start looking at education for a rational point of view. Education for educations sake is great if you can afford it but can you really justify the expense of a four year degree to become a fitness instructor? Do the math if you are spending $20,000 a year on an education a four year degree costs $80,000. If you are in a business where you can rationally expect to make $100,000 a year after graduation and there is a good job market then that is a good investment. If you are going into a job market like ours and can only land a job that pays le't say $24,000 a year that is a bad investment. After cost of living you will be paying off the student loan for the rest of your life after you figure in the cost of living and interest on the loan. A rational person realizes that education for educations sake is a luxury, an education should be a tool.
What needs to happen is for the academic community to start caring about really preparing students for life in the real world. Either improve the quality of the education so it's worth the price tag or make the price tag more in line with what people can actually afford, quit relying on the government to line your pocket. And for those who want to see the rate of inflation vs cost of education;
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Education/Education_inflation_chart.htm
-
Seth commented on the article |Actually I have been the recipient of charity and I have been grateful for it, it's one of the reasons I wend into health care. I do love how you infer so much about my character, I mean why stay on subject when you can go personal... That being said back to the real question; when nobody pays for health care who pays for health care?
I work on a floor where we do BMTs stem cell transplants and cord blood, all life saving but risky procedures. When things go well it's a minimum of 40 days in the hospital for BMTs. Oh and I'm in no way saying that insurance companies aren't part of the problem, but they approve procedures that medicaid never would, and this year our medicaid funding is unsecured, meaning that we don't even know if we will be getting anything for those patients. All the while the hospital covers millions in liability insurance and people say we don't need tort reform...
Oh and just for my personal edification I am a CNA on a peds hem/onc floor, I work the night shift and on my floor I'm the most requested tech because I do genuinely care about my patients, regardless if if they have insurance or not.
Let's get to the root of one thing though, what is with the negative connotation of charity? I have volunteered for charities and have been given gifts that helped cover bills when we were not able to cover them (I conciter it charity even though it is not through a specific organization). What is wrong with people giving and receiving because someone sees a need and fills it? What is the stigma that we are so afraid of. St. Jude is a charity and they do some of the most ground-breaking research in the country. Maybe you see something I don't see but charity is a good thing and putting the government between the giver and the recipient just takes away money that could have gone to save lives.
In any case Emily I would hope that we could have a rational conversation about where we go from here rather than drawing conclusions on the other persons character. I want to know what would you do to improve care without increasing costs? Here is my short list;
Tort reform - prosecute medical negligence but you don't get to sue the doctor because you pulled out your IV.
Tax incentives - for businesses to donate time and services to hospitals
Urgent care referrals - Come to the ER because you have a non emergent issue? We'll book you an appointment.
Fraud - criminal prosecution of those who commit fraud and ejection from medicaid for both doctors and enrollees.
Anyways that is my short list, let's see if we can get a positive discussion going.
-
Seth commented on the article |We are in a similar situation in SC. I work for a childrens hospital and approximately 20% of our funding comes from medicaid. As of now we are pretty well screwed. On one hand we must care for children regardless of their ability to pay by mandate, on the other hand we will not be getting reimbursement from medicaid as things stand now and we are gong to get reduced payment through medicare and insurance companies. We have spent so much time "doing more with less" we are down to the point where we have nothing left to cut (when you are cutting up cotton balls you are getting to the bottom of the barrel). Much more and it will start to affect patient care.
Here is the problem, nationally our credit card is over the limit but we are still spending like it's 1997 and we invested in Yahoo. We are faced with a reality that would have been unpleasant 5 years ago but in now going to be painful. All this because we haven't learned we can't afford free health care because quite simply it is not free at all. If you think it's because of wealthy hospitals, please come to my floor. What we need to accept is that health care has become a charity. In truth if you can't pay for something you need and you receive it from someone else either individually or collectively it is a charity by definition.
-
Seth commented on the article |
Not in any way saying that it isn't tragic what happened ( I work on a hemotology/oncology floor) but hospitals are having to make some very difficult decisions. What if the money had been given for this transplant, where would we take it from, would a blood bank not had the resources to provide a life-saving transfusion to a trauma victim? Would a premature baby have died because the equipment and drugs needed to keep it alive.
These are tough decisions and in health care you have to make them daily. While yes it tragic we are going to see more and more of it as national health care rolls out (and debate that one all you want but when hospitals get $100 now for a procedure that costs $110 and will be getting $75-$50 depending on patient satisfaction next year there will be cut backs and closures).
If you really want to change health care you have to have better answers than raise taxes. We have tried that in the past and all you do is kill the golden goose. Businesses leave or close entirely, leads to more unemployment, more strain on an already broken system... basically what we have now. If you want to move forward you encourage small businesses, make government more efficient (did Pelosi take a pay cut last year?). Finally treat charity like charity and not an entitlement. Charity elicits compassion and thanks, entitlement elicits... well the other end of the spectrum. Work in an ER and you will understand all to well what free health care means to health care workers, longer hours for less pay and more people treating you like trash.
-
Seth commented on the article |... You can have my seeds when you pry them from my cold dead hands!
But seriously, what possible good could this bill hope to do? In WWII we had victory gardens, now those same gardens would be illegal. I have a great idea, instead of passing stupid legislation that we can't afford how about we just enforce the laws that are already in place.
All that is going on here is a power play by the FDA and government. If you control the food you control the population. Just because it is unenforceable en mass does not mean that it won't be used as a doorway. Need to get approval to search a house and don't have probable cause, do they have a garden, SCORE!
Bottom line is this is bad legislation, I mean really what is next? I know i got food poisioning at taco bell to let's put an FDA officer at every restraint in America to make sure nobody gets sick... oh wait that is just how the food at taco bell always is...
-
Seth commented on the article |
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits
