Is PA political activism alienating PAs?

[Hope2PA]

Rather than poll asking about political activism alienating, How about a poll asking how many non members would join and how many total current members and non members would donate a designated amount ex. $50, $100, $150., $500..... to the AAPA... IF... Title change is adopted that truly reflects what the professionals are capable of and most arecurrently doing{practicing medicine without supervision or the fake supervised collaboration.).  I do see movement, real movement, but unfortunately  history repeats itself and PA's have been down the road before, which makes many hesitant to support.

 

 

[rev ronin]

46 minutes ago, Hope2PA said:

Rather than poll asking about political activism alienating, How about a poll asking how many non members would join and how many total current members and non members would donate a designated amount ex. $50, $100, $150., $500..... to the AAPA... IF... Title change is adopted that truly reflects what the professionals are capable of and most arecurrently doing{practicing medicine without supervision or the fake supervised collaboration.).  I do see movement, real movement, but unfortunately  history repeats itself and PA's have been down the road before, which makes many hesitant to support.

I don't have an issue with a separate poll on this topic; feel free to start one.  At the same time, declining to join AAPA is clearly multifactorial, and I see plenty of room for both questions to highlight real issues.

[deltawave]

1 hour ago, Hope2PA said:

 How about a poll asking how many non members would join and how many total current members and non members would donate a designated amount ex. $50, $100, $150., $500..... to the AAPA... IF... Title change is adopted...

Be sure to tag someone from the AAPA finance department. Money is always a big catapult for change. 

Like I said earlier, I'll not renew if they do not get the title change done this time. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by deltawave

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

While I'll put it more delicately, I have to agree with mcclane. There is a difference in what is a public health issue and a political stance. Now if AAPA came out and said that "we are against guns because they are scary. I have PTSD from shooting this AR-15" kind of nonsense, then yes, that would be wrong and alienate me. What does not alienate me is advocacy for evidence based gun policies and push for more research, like the ACEP policy below. If they stated whatever policy is against good medicine and stated it's reasoning with citations to the evidence, then I would obliged to agree no matter my affiliation. 

Personally I did not join after school because before I graduated everything they did was not the direction I wanted. Ignoring the name change survey we did years before this recent one that showed a popular vote for name change showing they did not care about members opinion. Were against things like OTP. Fighting PAFT. It was a mess. Then they saw they had a membership problem and were losing revenue, so they decided to pull their head out of their butt. So then I joined.

[Boatswain2PA]

4 hours ago, mcclane said:

You are more than welcome to become a public health scientist and prolific publisher in peer reviewed journals. 

I have a MPH, and I am published in a peer reviewed journal.
 

4 hours ago, mcclane said:

The reason medical societies persistently take public health stances that align with published literature has nothing to do with "incredibly biased" anything, but rather the result of decades of research that consistently returns the same conclusions, and conclusions that play out as anticipated. 

You're free to believe that, but I see plenty of evidence of selection bias in publication, not to mention the political bias I mentioned.

Speaking of "conclusions that play out as anticipated", why do the medical societies ignore public health problems (such as the spread of typhus in Los Angeles, the increase in TB, drug-induced mental health problems, etc ad nauseum) that are directly linked to progressive policies (such as open borders, drug decriminilization, etc)?  

[Hope2PA]

1 hour ago, rev ronin said:

I don't have an issue with a separate poll on this topic; feel free to start one.  At the same time, declining to join AAPA is clearly multifactorial, and I see plenty of room for both questions to highlight real issues.

Point taken, any info can be helpful when utilized appropriately. Agree that, for now, every PA and student should join based on the current tide. I think AAPA probably realizes they cannot drop the ball, this time. Just hope they don’t do a half-way job to keep PA’s somewhat accepting in order to please other professionals. No matter what title or limited goals are set,  physicians will not be happy and not ever go out of their way to allow advancement no matter how “nice”  PA’s ate.  NP’s don’t care, doubt they would do a lot of direct fights against PA’s, but no reason for them to help in any way. Sadly, my technical knowledge on developing and posting a survey/poll is lacking, so I will ask if anyone else would be willing to do the honors? 

[Boatswain2PA]

5 hours ago, Cideous said:

Using phrases like "big government" "liberal/leftist" to impregnate the minds of the not so educated and give them someone to hate and blame other than themselves for their lot in life.

It was not my intention to trigger you so much, or to cause anyone to "hate and blame".  I think (hope!) we can all agree that today's progressives generally push for larger government involvement, and conservatives want less.  And my term liberal/leftist was intended to differentiate between today's  "progressives" who identify as liberal but generally have much more leftist ideologies and those who have more classical/jeffersonian liberal beliefs.

 

5 hours ago, Cideous said:

And for the record, your boy Trump has just taken the mantle of biggest debt maker in the history of this country.  Yea him!  I have a new hat for you and him.  Make America Broke Again!  Absolutely fascinating how you guys RAIL against debt and big govt until one of your nuts gets into office.  I've not heard a peep from the Tea Party since Trump started racking up debt.  Hypocrites in the extreme.

If I can wade through the contempt you appear to have for half of America, I think I can agree with your point that President Trump has continued to blow the budget.  But since that has nothing to do with this thread, let's not discuss that here.

 

4 hours ago, rev ronin said:

This is about diluting the political clout of the AAPA by trying to codify who is "right" and who is "outside the mainstream"

I think much of this thread highlights this point clearly.  Look at the language of the left-leaning posters who utterly refuse to entertain the thought that anyone on the right could possibly be justified in any beliefs.  Instead of discussing the topics, they rail that those who disagree with them are flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers,  "impregnating the minds of those not educate", and...of course..."hypocrites in the extreme."

This is the problem with AAPA, the AMA, and many other organizations.  If you are someone like Ben Carson, then you MUST be an evil/racist/mysogenist/bigot.  That leads people who would like to be members to avoid membership because their beliefs are denigrated by the organization.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Boatswain2PA

[Boatswain2PA]

33 minutes ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

There is a difference in what is a public health issue and a political stance.

There isn't much between public health and politics.  Politics is the art/science of governing people, who make up the public.  The two things are intimately married.

We all agree that it is good public health policy to require car seats for infants.  But what about the new mom who can't afford one?  What if she is caught taking kid to daycare so she can go to her job and gets a ticket, that she can't afford?  And then goes to jail for not paying ticket....how is that a public good?

Unfortunately most public health "experts" are ONLY experts in public health, and they ignore the political aspect of public health policies.  See my comments above about illegal immigration, drug decriminilization, etc.  

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

55 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

There isn't much between public health and politics.  Politics is the art/science of governing people, who make up the public.  The two things are intimately married.

We all agree that it is good public health policy to require car seats for infants.  But what about the new mom who can't afford one?  What if she is caught taking kid to daycare so she can go to her job and gets a ticket, that she can't afford?  And then goes to jail for not paying ticket....how is that a public good?

Unfortunately most public health "experts" are ONLY experts in public health, and they ignore the political aspect of public health policies.  See my comments above about illegal immigration, drug decriminilization, etc.  

If they are intertwined then that is the fault of politics not following evidence. Evidence can not be argued with personal feelings, religion, or political leanings. 

as far as your example, are you proposing we shouldn’t require car seats? I know you aren’t, but I don’t see how that involves politics. That involves of a failing police force to make a proper judgement call in the spirit of the law, failure of social support initiatives to improve infant mortality from MVC, and failure of a healthcare system to educate and provide birth controls options. If anyone of these had been addressed, your example falls apart. So I wouldn’t say its public healths fault, it’s the failure to establish an overall system that is just.  While your example is unfortunate, we would have to implement the policy on in an area on a smaller scale in multiple areas to actually see if your suspicions are true. We can’t use off the cuff predictions for policy making in public health, or shouldn’t.

as far as your problem with public health experts being only experts in their field, this is why they collaborate with economists, civil engineers, and other professionals for implementation.

so I stand by my opinion that I’m okay with advocacy groups supporting public health initiatives, but politics that don’t involve behavior health, morbidity, mortality, or health care costs should be avoided. 
 

as far as the Ben Carson thing, I didn’t like that. I feel that when we give someone an award for medicine, it should be regardless of their politics, as long as they aren’t nazis or Tuskegee Trial experimenters.

I've seen how these conversations go, so I’m out after this comment. 

Moderator note: please defer from making comments about the current administration, current policies, or other matters that can cause this thread to degrade. This is, and @rev ronin can correct me if I’m wrong, about whether the AAPA alienates member with these policies, not the policies themself. I think a side conversation that naturally evolves from this is should they. Again this question by its nature is opinion. 

 

 

[deltawave]

Judging by the way this conversation drifted, it appears we are alienating ourselves. 

[Boatswain2PA]

34 minutes ago, mcclane said:

Strong impact factor on Stormfront, I am sure.

Not sure what Stormfront is.  But no, none of my published papers, even the one I was paid for, made a strong impact.

Are you capable of rising above personal insults??

 

35 minutes ago, mcclane said:

Immigrants spreading disease is a racist dog whistle.

Thank you for proving my point that leftists will call anyone who disagrees with them racist (or homophobic/mysogenist/etc ad nauseum).  

And when this leftist ideology invades organizations like the AAPA, like it has in the past, it will turn off many people.  

 

38 minutes ago, mcclane said:

your arguments that public health = politics = leftism /activism,

I never said public health = politics = leftism/activism.   Simply said that public health and politics are intimately married.  

 

37 minutes ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

If they are intertwined then that is the fault of politics not following evidence. Evidence can not be argued with personal feelings, religion, or political leanings. 

I don't think of it as a "fault" at all, just the way it is.  From the Italian "quarantinos" to John Snow's discovery of turbid water causing cholera to today's failure to provide clean water to Flint, everything in PUBLIC health is involved with politics.

And evidence can absolutely be argued with personal biases.  All one would have to do is select the evidence that supports your cause, something that is done all the time by both sides.  

 

42 minutes ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

are you proposing we shouldn’t require car seats? I know you aren’t,

Correct.  Just using an example of how the most basic public health program, that we all agree with, is connected to political situation (like you point out).

 

43 minutes ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

so I stand by my opinion that I’m okay with advocacy groups supporting public health initiatives, but politics that don’t involve behavior health, morbidity, mortality, or health care costs should be avoided. 

Agree completely.  However, since health, and especially public health, can now be regarded as something that is affected by EVERYTHING, some people would use this door as a means to advocate for ANYTHING - from gun control to climate change to LGBTQ rights to poverty reduction to anti-vaccination.

[CAdamsPAC]

47 minutes ago, mcclane said:

Strong impact factor on Stormfront, I am sure.

 

Immigrants spreading disease is a racist dog whistle.  Drug decriminilization has an effect opposite of what you have described here.  Your thoughts on the matter are very indicative of what blogs feed your opinions.

Lastly, it is, of course, very important to your arguments that public health = politics = leftism /activism, so you will inevitably repeat them.  You desperately need methods to broadly discredit an entire field of science and a simple, false equivalency is a powerful propaganda tool.

 

"Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site. " Okay Mods this cannot be tolerated!!!! I do think this posting is nothing more than a personal attack and slur directed at Boatswain2PA. I as a Black man hold many of the opinions expressed by Boats!!  I do not perceive him or his comments as racist, homophobic or any pejorative that can and are tossed at anyone not espousing "progressive" apolitical dogma. This CAN NOT  be allowed to stand!!!!

Edited October 31, 2019 by CAdamsPAC

[Boatswain2PA]

Let it stand brother, it just proves my point.

[Cideous]

1 hour ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Let it stand brother, it just proves my point.

Agreed.  The earth is not flat, vaccines do work and demonizing "the others" is wrong on all sides.  However, lies need to be called out for what they are.  Flat out lies.

As for AAPA, I never thought they should of become involved with Carson or any other political figure in the first place either the D or R side.  It was stupid, and  I hope they learned their lesson.

 

And Boats...you're more like 38% - 42% of the country by every major poll and the clock is ticking.  Or I guess that's just fake news as well.

Bottom line, AAPA should stay out of politics and spend every dime on changing our name and pushing for more independence.  That's it.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

@Boatswain2PA Well, I think some, like gun control, is a public health issue since it is usually performed by the mentally ill and accidental firearm discharges are a cause of a not insignificant number of preventable deaths, but I agree when they start stretching the line, not a fan.

but I trust public health experts.

[deltawave]

I'm not one for censorship, but this thread could be interpreted poorly by some. This is a public web page representing PAs. IMO, this looks bad on the profession. We've got disparaging comments on everything here from race, gender, Trump, flat-earthers, other professions, science. Come on. Take it to PM. None of that relates to the OP question. 

Prime example of why the AAPA should stay out of politics. The only thing worse than arguing politics at a bar is arguing politics on the internet. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by deltawave

[Boatswain2PA]

4 hours ago, Cideous said:

However, lies need to be called out for what they are.  Flat out lies.

I agree, of course.

However if your ideology forces you to demonize (like calling them a hypocrite/racist/homophobe/bigot) those who believe differently than you (like the AAPA leadership did with Dr. Ben Carson), then it becomes easy to dismiss anything they have to say as a lie.

In other words...just because it FEELS like a lie, doesn't mean it's a lie.  

I'll use an inverse scenario for you:  I am not really worried about anthropomorphic climate change.  We have had relatively small meteor strikes that have sent us into ice-ages for centuries/millennia.  Within recorded history we have had several volcano eruptions (like Krakatoa) that have put more crap into our atmosphere than all human produced coal/wood/oil/gas burning combined. The climate WILL change, and humans will adapt like we always have (maybe the Vikings will go back to Greenland if it's green again!).  It feels to me like the climate change movement is just another in a long series of doomsday prophecies.  But does that mean I think those who believe in catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change are liars?  No, I think they (mostly) believe in it (Al Gore and others who make lots of money off it are the exception.) 

Does it make me a LIAR because I look at other data?  No.

Regarding Dr. Carson and the AAPA - To many leftists (and possibly to you) I am a LIAR because I didn't hear Dr. Carson equate homosexuality with bestiality (or was it pedophilia?).  But I'm not a liar, I just look at his comments through a different lens.
 

4 hours ago, Cideous said:

you're more like 38% - 42% of the country by every major poll and the clock is ticking.

If I were an extremist I could start screaming and calling you a LIAR for posting such things as there are several polls who show President Trump is at 47-49%.  Then we could start yelling at each other about the bias of your polls versus the bias of my polls, and then yell at each other about what the definition of "major poll" is, then yell at each other about the questioning in the polls, etc etc ad nauseum.

But I don't think you're a liar.  I think you're wrong about a lot of stuff my friend...but I don't think you're a liar! 

 

4 hours ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

some, like gun control, is a public health issue

Sure it is.  But it is also a political issue.  Shall we give up our guns to be safe, but give up our liberties?

Cars kill vastly more people every year in America than guns.  Should we give up our cars?  When automated cars become as safe as manually driven cars, shall we criminalize ownership of manually driven cars?  

We are supposed to be a free people.  How much of our freedoms should we give up for safety?

 

4 hours ago, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

but I trust public health experts.

You trust them to do what?

 

4 hours ago, deltawave said:

Prime example of why the AAPA should stay out of politics.

Exactly.  I don't delve into politics with my patients.  AAPA damn well shouldn't have delved into politics when they removed Dr. Carson's invitation to receive the Paragon awards.

But unfortunately they caved to militants who lack the ability to separate politics from other aspects of life.  Because, to them, to have conservative views are equatable to being homophobic/mysogenistic/racist/etc, and those people are evil, and they LIE!

Edited November 1, 2019 by Boatswain2PA

[rev ronin]

6 hours ago, mcclane said:

Strong impact factor on Stormfront, I am sure.

Immigrants spreading disease is a racist dog whistle. 

Both those statements are inconsistent with civil discourse, and unwelcome on this site.  You can disagree with me, or anyone, without calling anyone racists or neo-nazis.

Since at least 50% of the traffic on this thread seems to be making the point I was trying to elicit, by ignoring my pleas to not argue specific political topics, I think it's served its purpose and I am closing it before it goes further afield.