Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.

Our Republican Primary frontrunner...

I probably would have thought this was a Sarah Palin quote if I hadn't seen the Town Hall.

Wait, is that what Drumpf actually said? Not satire, but verbatim???

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.

Our Republican Primary frontrunner...

I probably would have thought this was a Sarah Palin quote if I hadn't seen the Town Hall.

Wait, is that what Drumpf actually said? Not satire, but verbatim???

I won't commit to it being a 100% correct quote, because I would have to watch it a second time to be sure .

But yeah, pretty much. He kept on arguing that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to the world while at the same time arguing that more countries need to get nuclear weapons.

That's amazing. "He tells it like it is", if what it is is incoherent nonsense.

Here it is, if interested:

What you willing to bet that Trump is getting his advice from Tay? (Microsoft's AI's twitter account)

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump's now saying if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, women who have abortions should be punished. The punishment is not specified. I don't know whether he envisages fines, jail time, death, or whatever, but has any pro-life Presidential candidate ever advocated punishing women for abortions? I thought it the hypothetical scenario was always that the doctor would be punished, but not the women.

Anywho, this dude is one smooth ladies man

EDIT: Nevermind, now he has flip-flopped on that position...might be a new record. A couple hours?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-town-hall/index.html

If Roe v Wade was overturned tomorrow all it would do is remove the federal protection from abortion so it would devolve back to a state issue. States would be the final authority but I don't foresee much changing I'd that happened. There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely. Regardless the president wouldn't have any say in the matter. Trump is willfully ignorant about a whole host of issues.

 jasper76 wrote:
Here it is, if interested:

Spoiler:

It's like he thinks he can shape reality simply by speaking.

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Here it is, if interested:

Spoiler:

It's like he thinks he can shape reality simply by speaking.

If you ask me, he's on the spot, he doesn't understand what he's talking about enough to speak about it intelligently, which should be a disqualifier given the deadly seriousness of the issue, and "proliferation" is not one of his "best words".

Great Odin's Raven!!!! I'm confident I know have brain cancer from that. I am actually thankful I didn't watch the townhall.

An you know what, his people ate it up. None of this is bad for him. He even has plenty of people that do understand this stuff but they are just choosing to ignore it.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Great Odin's Raven!!!! I'm confident I know have brain cancer from that. I am actually thankful I didn't watch the townhall.

An you know what, his people ate it up. None of this is bad for him. He even has plenty of people that do understand this stuff but they are just choosing to ignore it.

If it's any consolation, Ted Cruz and John Kasich performed quite strongly at times, and the crowd was noticeably most receptive to Kasich IME.

It's actually Cruz that up by 10 in WInsconsin in today's aggregates.

GO Cruz and Kasich!

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Anecdotal, but I know of at least one person voted Trump because, "He pisses off all the people I don't like". So there may be some truth to that.

The most important part of governing is stigginit, obviously.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely. .

I have trouble believing that, just based on the very vigorous Republican attempts in several states. They know they can't outlaw it right now, but they are for sure trying. Given carte blanche to make it a crime, I can absolutely see some states like MO or MS or TX or several others trying to.

The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.

Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.

It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.

Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.

It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.

Yeah, no. A lot of these "admitting privileges" are based on arbitrary architectural designs, like having a hallway that can accommodate two gurneys going side by side. Things not asked of other medical practitioners.

I had to be put under anesthetic to get my wisdom teeth out. Unconscious, dead to the world. That type or surgery is OK, but a completely ambulatory surgery needs admitting privileges?

Until any outpatient services need an MD with admitting privileges, then the anti-abortion folks can talk. Before that, its so blatant that if you deny it I lose respect for you.

I totally understand being against abortion, but to pretend these measures are for women's health is just disingenuous and sad.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.

Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.

It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.

Yeah, no. A lot of these "admitting privileges" are based on arbitrary architectural designs, like having a hallway that can accommodate two gurneys going side by side. Things not asked of other medical practitioners.

I had to be put under anesthetic to get my wisdom teeth out. Unconscious, dead to the world. That type or surgery is OK, but a completely ambulatory surgery needs admitting privileges?

Until any outpatient services need an MD with admitting privileges, then the anti-abortion folks can talk. Before that, its so blatant that if you deny it I lose respect for you.

I totally understand being against abortion, but to pretend these measures are for women's health is just disingenuous and sad.

I'm not arguing that the TX case was designed to make it harder for abortionist to qualify on that regulation.

I'm arguing that your MD performing ambulatory (outpatient) procedures while having admitting privileges to a nearby hospital is "a good thing". If your MD needs to admit you because of botched procedures, or something out of their control, actually speeds the process along enough that depending on the reason, mere minutes could make the difference.

Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.

Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.

It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason and give them 1,2,3 medications."

Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to:
1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit
2) explain the situation to that doc
3) possibly give up care of that patient

Just to name a few things.

We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.

Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admitting-privileges-health-care/

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just today, for example, we had to delay transferring a GI bleed patient to a hospital for 8+ hours because the only hospital where our general surgeon had admitting privileges didn't have a bed available.

So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.

Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.

It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason".

Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to:
1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit
2) explain the situation to that doc
3) possibly give up care of that patient

Just to name a few things.

We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.

Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admitting-privileges-health-care/

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.

But when its a contentious issue, especially one that many hospitals may not want to get involved with, it is an unnecessary barrier. Especially when other more dangerous procedures don't require them.

A bill to force all outpatient surgery centers to have admitting privileges is one thing and commendable; when it targets one specific practice, ehh not so much.

Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.

Also gonna need some clarification on that. A doctor is free of responsibility if they don't have admitting privileges?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.

I'm aware.So how does legislative requirements for very specific procedures help that?

Contentious issue or not...

If a patient in the clinic is having such serious complications you need to get them out to a hospital, you *want* to have a doc that has admitting privileges.

The hospital isn't performing the abortion, or colon resection, or whatever....they are there to fix the complications of whatever had already been done.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.

Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.

It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason".

Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to:
1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit
2) explain the situation to that doc
3) possibly give up care of that patient

Just to name a few things.

We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.

Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admitting-privileges-health-care/

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.

But when its a contentious issue, especially one that many hospitals may not want to get involved with, it is an unnecessary barrier. Especially when other more dangerous procedures don't require them.

A bill to force all outpatient surgery centers to have admitting privileges is one thing and commendable; when it targets one specific practice, ehh not so much.

But not all outpatient surgery are *the same*.

Seeing your podiatrist to fix an ingrown toenail is a weee bit different than an D&E/D&C/Hystorectory abortive procedures.

IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.

Think its three or four months in a hospital for a surgeon to get full priviliges

 Jihadin wrote:
Think its three or four months in a hospital for a surgeon to get full priviliges

Yeah... the credentialing process is *that* extensive.

Pain in the arse in my job...

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Contentious issue or not...

If a patient in the clinic is having such serious complications you need to get them out to a hospital, you *want* to have a doc that has admitting privileges.

The hospital isn't performing the abortion, or colon resection, or whatever....they are there to fix the complications of whatever had already been done.

That still doesn't touch the reason why specifically abortion doctors should be required to have said admitting privileges.

I'm not arguing against admitting privileges, just asking why abortions need them. It's a medical procedure done generally without anesthesia, and generally (without other underlying health concerns) in the clinic that day.

Plastic surgeons aren't tasked to have the same requirements, and the patient is put under to get bigger breasts. Anesthesia is one of the biggest problems with surgery, hands down. Other ambulatory surgery centers like Lasik aren't legally required to have admittance. So why is abortion is the only one? Unless its completely political.

Again, I don't think its a bad idea, but the the way legislators went about it is just soooo obviously anti-abortion. A Constitutionally protected right.And yet, bigger breasts aren't.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely.

There are six states with laws already on the books that go into effect if Roe v Wade is overturned. Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and Illinois have laws that would outright ban all abortion should that occur. 28 states total have trigger laws in effect that would ban most abortion procedures/make them even more impossible to obtain. This is ignoring that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, have effectively regulated abortion service providers to near non-existence anyway.

 whembly wrote:

IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.

"Most" and "have". Those words should stick way out instead "shall". Which what the contentious legislation is proposing, and legally is a big fething deal.

Dutch... you can bet your ass that most Plastic Surgeons *do* have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals.

Way too many fething things can go awry.

Medical Malpractice Insurance I believe is why it takes three to four months. Final authority rest with the "CEO" of the hospital to admit the surgeon name for coverage. I do belive....and I'm not throwing him under the bus that D-USA might have better overview on this. I left the medical field a long time ago

 whembly wrote:
Dutch... you can bet your ass that most Plastic Surgeons *do* have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals.

Way too many fething things can go awry.

Do you not see the difference between that and all shall legislatively?