Your comment wasn't wrong. In 1997, The AMA along with five other medical groups lobbied congress to limit the number of medicare-funded residency slots [1, 2]. This limit was enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and hasn't changed since then [3]. Hospitals were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to voluntarily reduce the size of their resident training programs [4].
You posted this two hours after I replied with a list of google results showing you’re two decades out of date. Now it’s -clear- you’re being disingenuous, but for the life of me I cannot fathom why.
None of this is outdated. You're trying hard to to rewrite history with downvotes.
The 1997 cap on medicare-funded residency slots has remained in place since that time, unchanged despite population growth and an aging population. The current crisis and physician shortage is in large part a result of that two-decades-old legislation which was engineered by the AMA and other major medical groups.
Based on your comment history, you trained as a doctor, which is great and absolutely commendable [1].
However, do you feel compelled to troll and post obviously slanted information due to your personal association with the AMA?
For the record, I think doctors should get paid well and more than they currently do. Clinics should be run by physicians. But allowing guilds like the AMA to artificially restrict the availability of critical healthcare has resulted in millions of avoidable deaths and serious suffering across the entire population.
"The predicted physician shortages will result in decreased access to care for millions of individuals. [...] [A]dding one PCP per 10,000 people would reduce predicted all-cause mortality [...] by 5.31 percent. Translated nationally, this would avert 127,617 deaths." [2]
"In 1997, a consortium that included the AAMC, the AMA, and other major organizations declared that [...] 'the United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians'. The consortium recommended limiting the number of residency positions funded by Medicare, a goal that was partially achieved in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997" [1]
See also the 1997 senate finance committee hearings on graduate medical education [2].
In 2013, the supreme court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016. [...] This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act." [0]
For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.
In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]
The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non-existent [0].
And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.
Think about what specific aspects of the business generate profits and where your costs lie. To rapidly expand, you'll want a multiplier that greatly increases profits or drastically cuts costs.
As a thought exercise, think about what you'd need to do to double or triple your sales. A bigger marketing budget? Institutional clients? More staff? Content? The details will depend on the specific nature of your business. Once you have one or more scenarios laid out, work backwards and figure out what's required to get there. The result will give you a good idea of what investments to make to grow your business.
Yes, the government and the sweatshop owners are working hand-in-hand to exploit workers and both are culpable. Sometimes they like to present themselves as good cop / bad cop [0].
First, the ability to be self-sufficient is curtailed by the government through entitlements granted to a select few by the ruling class.
The Enclosures in England [1] are the canonical example. Agricultural land once used by everyone is privatized. With their livelihood threatened, the rural populations are driven to the cities to seek employment in dangerous factories.
Most industrial societies are based on this concept. The sweatshop isn't doing anyone any favors. They are simply another side of the same coin.
Very interesting. Atmospherics might also be useful as an RNG or possibly a trustworthy public randomness beacon.
"There are an average of 45 lightning flashes per second around the world. [...] The radio signature (like a fingerprint) of a lightning strike can be detected around the world [...] [R]eceiving ELF/VLF waves allows us to determine the exact location of most lightning strikes on the whole planet, with just a small number of ELF/VLF receivers [...]"
If you think the situation is unlikely to improve, line up a better job and then quit. You don't have to tolerate a dysfunctional team. It won't affect your resume or job prospects and joining a better team will enhance your career.
+1 Also next time do some due diligence and check glassdoor.com: every company has a few people who didn't fit in, but if Glassdoor is pages and pages of people talking about how dysfunctional the company is, or how bad the culture is, then you can expect it to be accurate.
[1] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-03-01/news/1997060012_...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/01/us/doctors-assert-there-ar...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/train-more-doctors-res...
[4] http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/