Why not "Associate Physician" instead of "Physician associate"?

[jdtpac]

the next president of the aapa(herman) said he would support a committee to investigate name change while he was running for office. that is why many of us supported him.

let's see if he is true to his word when he takes office.

these are the folks who actually run the aapa. none of them were elected yet they set and enforce policy:

http://www.aapa.org/about_aapa/staff.aspx

only one of them is a pa.

this is listed on the same page. I laughed out loud:

 

"Listening is the foundation that drives all leadership decisions at AAPA. What are our members telling us? "

 

Like I said you really don't have a clue. by the way, I see you removed your last comment about the current president, did someone read it and tell you that you were misquoting them?

[andersenpa]

You two have no idea of what you are saying!thesse last 2 posts are way out of line! You both haven't got a clue of what happens in the Academy.

 

Er...my asking a straightforward question is "out of line"??

It was a question not a statement sir

So I don't see how I was "saying" anything.

I'm trying to ask a question of you, who has said he is knowledgeable about the AAPA.

Remember what I said earlier about listening without being dismissive? This is a case in point. Please show us the respect you ask for yourself.

[jdtpac]

Er...my asking a straightforward question is "out of line"??

It was a question not a statement sir

So I don't see how I was "saying" anything.

I'm trying to ask a question of you, who has said he is knowledgeable about the AAPA.

Remember what I said earlier about listening without being dismissive? This is a case in point. Please show us the respect you ask for yourself.

 

*i was not referring to you, sir. EMEDPA removed *or edited a post where he referred to hearing a statement from "someone he trusted" *said the current president was afraid to rock the boat. *i would ask him to either confirm or deny that he did this. *if you were offended, i apologize, it is never my intention to ever be disrespectful to anyone. *to answer your question, the president can ask the board to honor his request to form a task force. the president cannot form a task force without first vetting it with the board of directors. * this is mainly because it takes a vote of the board to approve the funding of the task force.

[Contrarian]

*i was not referring to you, sir...

 

Umm... YES YOU were... but again... dismissive to us stupid people.

 

You two have no idea of what you are saying!thesse last 2 posts are way out of line! You both haven't got a clue of what happens in the Academy.

 

The "last 2 posts" before yours was both EMEDPA's and Andersenpa's post... so before you log on here and imply that EMEDPA is lying... stop.

[LIPPER]

"6500 practicing PA's" ..... Holding onto that like the Last stand of 300 at Thermopylae... I wonder what lore will exist in the future lol. Cuz it certainly is taking on a mystique all its own

[andersenpa]

"6500 practicing PA's" ..... Holding onto that like the Last stand of 300 at Thermopylae... I wonder what lore will exist in the future lol. Cuz it certainly is taking on a mystique all its own

I mentioned earlier on this thread or perhaps another that the census included students as well as practicing PAs. This is coming from someone on the name change group. So no lore there.

[jdtpac]

 

Excuse me I thought your tag was Contrarian not EMEDPA. Before you get on your bully pulpit and start ranting as usual,and try to discredit someone, it's more appropriate that we from we hear from the individual that was asked the question. I believe they can speak for themselves. I know what I saw on the post last night 10 PM and I'll stand by.

[LIPPER]

I mentioned earlier on this thread or perhaps another that the census included students as well as practicing PAs. ...

Do student have an equal say, an equal vote as it pertains to AAPA and name change voting? If not, then make sure to limit their scope of impact on the 6500 claim.

[bgdog]

I mentioned earlier on this thread or perhaps another that the census included students as well as practicing PAs. This is coming from someone on the name change group. So no lore there.

 

No, they wouldn't let me vote because I'm a student.

 

In 6 more months you will have another vote for the name change, and I will rally my classmates to add another 30 or so, believe that.

[EMEDPA]

Like I said you really don't have a clue. by the way, I see you removed your last comment about the current president, did someone read it and tell you that you were misquoting them?

no, I reconsidered my post which involved a private discussion which might be inappropriate to discuss on a public forum.

I hope you were not accusing a forum member of lying( I wasn't) as that would be a bannable offense.

I am not your enemy. we have some of the same priorities, we just disagree on how to reach the goal.

the current president of the aapa has gone on record as saying that we need to modernize the way we discuss the profession and do away with terms like supervision and midlevel provider. he and I agree at least on these things. remember that I continue to support the aapa and am a current dues paying member and dfaapa regardless of my stance on name change.

[EMEDPA]

"6500 practicing PA's" ..... Holding onto that like the Last stand of 300 at Thermopylae... I wonder what lore will exist in the future lol. Cuz it certainly is taking on a mystique all its own

as you may recall a few yrs later the spartans came back victorious...

[LIPPER]

as you may recall a few yrs later the spartans came back victorious...

yes, and they slept with young boys and smacked their wives around....its all foklore...

 

Hey I've got my Fantasy draft in 3 hrs.....nothing else matters

[EMEDPA]

Hey I've got my Fantasy draft in 3 hrs.....nothing else matters

well, one must have priorities in life...

[jdtpac]

no, I reconsidered my post which involved a private discussion which might be inappropriate to discuss on a public forum.

 

So then you are admitting that you had a post on this forum that you changed and I read before you changed it referring to yourself and another individual, that could have been somewhat misleading and that it was possible that I could have responded the way I did because of your original post? your statement that you "reconsidered" your post because of the discussion you had with another individual implies to me that the above actually happen. my credibility and my honor has been questioned by another individual response to these posts and I would truly appreciate you at least acknowledging that I could have possibly read your post prior to your change.

 

I know that I'm not liked by many on this forum because I say what I feel about an opposite opinion. I have always stated the facts as I know them without embellishing or misrepresenting any information that I have been fortunate enough to receive from the Academy leadership and staff. I have worked very hard to not have my reputation tarnished over my 35 years in this profession and I am not going to let a post on this forum allow that to happen.

[ventana]

EMEDPA ,

The Academy has spent 100s of thousands of dollars over the years producing public education materials that was intended for individual PAs and the constituent organizations to share with their physicians, other health care providers and the public. They have made many public service announcements and provided them to the constituent organizations to be given to local TV and radio station. I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked by local newspapers, radio and TV stations to give comments about our profession. We have held all types of events around the state (like many other constituent organizations have) during PA week to promote the profession. I will give you an individual example: The Cleveland Clinic physicians and staff knows what a PA is thanks to Josanne Pagel. During one of the PA weeks she and her PAs did a wonderful job of setting up displays, holding daily events and even went as far as taking pictures of all the individual PAs and putting them on the walls of the walkways of the parking garages connecting to the hospital. There are over 350 PAs in this system who are a credit to the profession. The tools for the grassroots PAs to educate the public has always been developed with a high level of professionalism by the Academy, maybe we should be laying the blame on the individual PAs and constituent organizations for not doing a good enough job of profiling and promoting our profession. What more do you want the Academy to do for you(our profession) that we have been not doing for ourselves?

 

 

 

ALL the above things that AAPA "paid for"

 

are those not "paid for" through the dues of the members? Should not the members have some say in what is going on with their dues? If not then I would be interested in joining an agency that does ideed listen to it's members and is in fact run by people of our profession instead of a bunch of Non-PA's - some of which have ties to the AMA

[EMEDPA]

I did change a post a few min after posting it (after jdt read it) because I felt in retrospect that it was inappropriate to air in a public forum. some discussions are privileged and should only be shared once both parties agree.

I did not change it because it was untrue or misleading.

I never accused you (JDT) of lying. I am sorry that others felt the need to do so. I am sorry for any confusion that was created when I removed a post I felt to be inappropriate.

 

let's try this again. I am not your enemy. your opinions are welcome and valued here. if I just felt you were trying to "stir the pot" I would have banned you already. you will notice I have not as I respect your right to share an opinion on here even if I and other disagree with it.

[EMEDPA]

ALL the above things that AAPA "paid for"

 

are those not "paid for" through the dues of the members? Should not the members have some say in what is going on with their dues? If not then I would be interested in joining an agency that does ideed listen to it's members and is in fact run by people of our profession instead of a bunch of Non-PA's - some of which have ties to the AMA

will send you a pm about the option you mentioned....

[jdtpac]

ALL the above things that AAPA "paid for"

 

are those not "paid for" through the dues of the members? Should not the members have some say in what is going on with their dues? If not then I would be interested in joining an agency that does ideed listen to it's members and is in fact run by people of our profession instead of a bunch of Non-PA's - some of which have ties to the AMA

 

Some of the public information was paid for by dues membership, Some of it was paid for through grants that were given by pharmaceutical companies, Other material where from donations or grants from the PA foundation, PAEA, NCCPA and also some constituent organizations. you have the right as a member to ask where your membership dues are being spent by asking for a request of that information from the Academy. a lot of the information was developed by the Academy's public relations committee, which is made up of fellow members in the Academy that receive input from the staff. I can tell you as a member of the Board of Directors of the Academy for over four years and a committee chair that most of this information presented to the board for funding and approval. most of the information was shared with the constituent organizations to be distributed in their states or at their specialty society meeting. I will not repeat myself as to what I said about funding for legislation and grassroots levels promotion of the profession. Does that begin to answer your question?

[jdtpac]

I did change a post a few min after posting it (after jdt read it) because I felt in retrospect that it was inappropriate to air in a public forum. some discussions are privileged and should only be shared once both parties agree.

I did not change it because it was untrue or misleading.

I never accused you (JDT) of lying. I am sorry that others felt the need to do so. I am sorry for any confusion that was created when I removed a post I felt to be inappropriate.

 

let's try this again. I am not your enemy. your opinions are welcome and valued here. if I just felt you were trying to "stir the pot" I would have banned you already. you will notice I have not as I respect your right to share an opinion on here even if I and other disagree with it.

 

Thank you for this post and I hope the individual who made reference to my possibly being dishonest Will retract his statement. I was not trying to stir the pot more than reacting to the statement that was about an individual who I hold in the highest regard. we are close friends and I am afraid that the retracted post disturbed me somewhat. My intentions are not to incite individuals but more to have an open dialogue And often it happens to be an opposing opinion and maynot be welcome comment by those who support a unconditional title change. I do get upset when I hear individuals making statements about the Academy that are not founded. and I really don't think there are some who really want to hear comments from opposing positions. Unfortunately, That does not offer a good exchange of dialogue to try and come to some compromise which would be best for the profession.

Thank you again for what you done today is very much appreciate.

[EMEDPA]

thank you for the above.

this thread has strayed quite far from its original topic so I am going to close it at this point.

if anyone wants to start another on a similar topic that would be fine and we can focus on a single topic.

reopened for 24 hrs by special request.

[Contrarian]

... I hope the individual who made reference to my possibly being dishonest Will retract his statement...

 

Why would I do that...???

You were being dishonest.

 

YOU claimed that YOU were only referring to EMEDPA's post... but you weren't. If you read the highlighted area's in my response above (Post # 190 was the post pointing out your clear and obvious dishonesty) its totally obvious that you were talkin about BOTH (your word) of the 2 (again your choice) of the posts directly before yours, where you claim that they were inappropriate.

 

I was well aware that EMEDPA changed his response. I wasn't sure why he changed it, but then you tried to imply (twice) that he changed his post because it wasn't true. He clarified that point. He let that slide... so you were fine there.

 

That wasn't where YOUR dishonesty that I leveled...occurred. It was when YOU claimed that you were ONLY referring to EMEDPA and that you weren't talking to/about Andersenpa's question in your response is what was DISHONEST because clearly YOU were.

 

Post # 182-Andersenpa simply asked a question... about the powers of the AAPA president...

Post # 183- Then EMEDPA made a statement... about a discussion he apparently had...

 

Post # 184- YOU started reminding us about your 30 yrs entrenched in the bueraucracy known as the AAPA and stated:

 

You two have no idea of what you are saying! thesse last 2 posts are way out of line! You both haven't got a clue of what happens in the Academy.

 

When you were called on it... instead of saying that you miss-spoke ... YOU claimed that YOU were only referring to 1 person and one post (EMEDPAs) in Post #189... then worked really hard to make the rest of the discussion about EMEDPAs post and garnering a retraction from me.

 

You still haven't admitted that you WERE referring to both of those posts (Andersenpa's and EMEDPA's) and continue with the Obfuscation.

So YES... you are being disonest.

 

No retraction or apology required from me for pointing that out.

[jdtpac]

 

Why would I do that...???

You were being dishonest.

 

YOU claimed that YOU were only referring to EMEDPA's post... but you weren't. If you read the highlighted area's in my response above (Post # 190 was the post pointing out your clear and obvious dishonesty) its totally obvious that you were talkin about BOTH (your word) of the 2 (again your choice) of the posts directly before yours, where you claim that they were inappropriate.

 

I was well aware that EMEDPA changed his response. I wasn't sure why he changed it, but then you tried to imply (twice) that he changed his post because it wasn't true. He clarified that point. He let that slide... so you were fine there.

 

That wasn't where YOUR dishonesty that I leveled...occurred. It was when YOU claimed that you were ONLY referring to EMEDPA and that you weren't talking to/about Andersenpa's question in your response is what was DISHONEST because clearly YOU were.

 

Post # 182-Andersenpa simply asked a question... about the powers of the AAPA president...

Post # 183- Then EMEDPA made a statement... about a discussion he apparently had...

 

Post # 184- YOU started reminding us about your 30 yrs entrenched in the bueraucracy known as the AAPA and stated:

 

 

 

When you were called on it... instead of saying that you miss-spoke ... YOU claimed that YOU were only referring to 1 person and one post (EMEDPAs) in Post #189... then worked really hard to make the rest of the discussion about EMEDPAs post and garnering a retraction from me.

 

You still haven't admitted that you WERE referring to both of those posts (Andersenpa's and EMEDPA's) and continue with the Obfuscation.

So YES... you are being disonest.

 

No retraction or apology required from me for pointing that out.

 

 

* *your arrogance amazes me. so you think you can pass judgment on an individual based on something that you did not even read yourself *and then you feel justified in questioning another person's credibility based on that supposition. I owe you no explanation, because you do not deserve it, but i would like to share the facts with others on this forum so they will know what exactly happened.*

 

EMEDPAs *original post stated that the current president of the academy was" afraid of the staff. and he did not want to rock the boat and wanted to continue business as usual". *he further went on to say that "he *did not hear this from the president himself but from someone he trusted". after preparing my own comments when i *saw that the original post had been retracted and edited i changed my post. i was referring to the two posts that he had placed on the forum and the two individuals i was referring to were himself and his trusted friend, and not andersenpa. *i believe i have cleared the air with both of these individuals and i suggested you go back and read post #202.*

 

*i thought this issue was laid to rest because EMEDPA *originally stated at 5 pm last evening that he was closing the post because it was getting off point. apparently, you have convinced him to reopen the post so that you can feel justified in trying to discredit me further. *if that gives you pleasure so be it. i know in my heart that i did not say anything intentionally to discredit any other individual and i was basing my post on the original post that I read. if you cannot except that exclamation se la gar!

 

*i will continue to follow the debate on the pros and cons of title change and share my opinion (as you also do) and hopefully we can do it in a more professional and civil manner.

[Contrarian]

... apparently, you have convinced him to reopen the post so that you can feel justified in trying to discredit me further.

 

Nope... YOU requested a "retraction" ... I simply explained why one wasn't warranted or required.

 

You two have no idea of what you are saying! thesse last 2 posts are way out of line! You both haven't got a clue of what happens in the Academy.

 

i was referring to the two posts that he had placed on the forum and the two individuals i was referring to were himself and his trusted friend, and not andersenpa.

 

Dude... YOU are funny.

EMEDPA's "trusted friend" didn't post here, and since you don't know who this "trusted friend" is... YOU 'haven't got a clue' what this "trusted friend" knows. So yeah... doesn't make sense and just ain't buyin it...

 

Also... I hope you do continue to post your "opinion." Its as valid as any PA-C's here.

That's NOT the problem ... its your expectation of deference and your condecending and dismissive manner of posting that's the problem.

 

Contrarian

P.s... repeatedly reminding us that YOU have been a integral part of what we percieve as the problem (the entrenched AAPA officials who are disconected from PAs in te trenches) for 30 yrs isn't helping ... but apparently you are tooo smart to figure that out.

:heheh:

[Joelseff]

Don't really wanna jump in but Jdtpac, I actually thought you were referring to emed and Andersen when u posted the "you 2 have no idea what you're talking about..." post. Emed didn't post about his friend till AFTER said post. Just keeping it real....

 

Carry on guys....

 

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

[rcdavis]

Eric, close this sucker, the back and forth is tedious

And I am too old for it.