A perverted campaign against LGBT rights in Houston
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Hahahaha.... I am the "Employee Complaint Department". I am the guy at "corporate" who all our employees call when there's a dispute with local management.
I must be doing something right, because we're union-free while our competitors are up to their armpits with the SEIU.
I am absolutely fair. Our Nursing Home Administrators and Directors of Nursing are also whacked-out crazy birds. And don't get me started on the therapists.
Pretty much, everyone is a freaking nutcase now days.
When everyone looks like a nut, you might want to invest in a mirror.
Now I know you're just a flipping idiot.
You've never worked side by side with nurses have you?
And yet you call them nutcases.
Pot, meet kettle.
You obviously know nothing about patient care.
I never said I knew anything about patient care. I said I know about employment law and regulations.
You are an idiot, and now you have amended your analogy to be this:
Regular vehicles driven by employees [Commercial vehicles] have to drive 55 while everybody else who are regular vehicles driven by employees can drive 70.
Why? Regular vehicles driven by employees [Commercial vehicles] are owned by people with money, so screw them... they should all have to get out of my way.
This is beyond absurdity at this point. At least when you were using an actual, legitimate definition of "commercial vehicle" you had a simplistic, but wrong point. In this case these would be similarly situated because they would, by necessity be the exact same thing...I'm not even sure why you attempted to use a different (wrong) term.
You are now, somehow, claiming that EMPLOYERS are the Regular Vehicles Driven by Employees while the "Everybody Else" is, in fact, Employees. Both are doing the exact same exercise: driving. Drivers drive. Employers are not employeeing.
Which was, apparently, a laughable lie. Are you the new Prime?
How about this:
Why don't you list what an employer "does" in your opinion. Go ahead and post characteristics of a generalized employer as well.
Then list for us what an employee "does" in your opinion. Now some characteristics of an employee.
Why don't you list what an employer "does" in your opinion. Go ahead and post characteristics of a generalized employer as well.
Then list for us what an employee "does" in your opinion. Now some characteristics of an employee.
If you're driving a car that is owned and operated by your employer, it is a commercial vehicle. If you are driving a taxi cab, it is a commercial vehicle. If you are driving a pest control car with fake mouse ears, it is a commercial vehicle. If you're a landscaper hauling all your equipment, you have a commercial vehicle. If you're driving a pickup truck with the cool yellow blinking lights because you work for the road construction company, you're driving a commercial vehicle.
It's really not that hard a concept.
In the vast majority of cases, the "employer" does (or used to do) what the employees do. The owner has the added responsibilities of paying taxes, making payroll, making enough sales to make payroll and taxes, etc., etc., rinse and repeat.
And I don't care about that, I care about my patients and so do the nurses, CNAs, therapists, etc. with whom I work. If they have problems with being reassigned patients then they take that up with their immediate supervisor. However, in my experience here at UIHC those types of issues are few and far between. Perhaps they're taken care of without staff physicians knowledge, but the bottom line is that the nursing staff I work with have no problem accommodating certain conditions.
So, when all is said and done you're just not a very good person.
Last edited:
Lol, sure if you disregard the actual definition of "commercial vehicle", yeah other than that I guess.
You were right, this isn't a hard concept, yet you still can't get it.
An employer, by definition, employs. He runs his business and employs employees to do tasks. What a complicated concept!
By definition an employee complete the assigned tasks, i.e. they are employed.
They are not similarly situated. Sure, an employer may perform tasks similar to an employee, but that that time they are not acting as an employer (i.e. not hiring/firing/delegating/tasking/etc.) So now we've established that employers may perform the tasks of employees....but that is not reciprocated.
An employer, by definition, employs. He runs his business and employs employees to do tasks. What a complicated concept!
By definition an employee complete the assigned tasks, i.e. they are employed.
They are not similarly situated. Sure, an employer may perform tasks similar to an employee, but that that time they are not acting as an employer (i.e. not hiring/firing/delegating/tasking/etc.) So now we've established that employers may perform the tasks of employees....but that is not reciprocated.
The employer also writes the paycheck.
The employee has very little say in that process.
You really are clueless about employer-employee relations, aren't you?
Anyone who cares about healthcare understands that the most important aspect of any healthcare program is "what is best for the patient". The fact you don't understand this concept undermines any opinion you have about nursing staff (term used in a general sense).
With this in mind, why would anyone give your opinions any credence?
We'll all remember that the next time you and your comrades comment on the GOP presidential field.
That's not a true statement at all mstp, so I don't think you should be beating anyone up with it when it is pretty much reflexive nonsense, political mumbo jumbo at best.
It might be best for the patient to get the latest and greatest drugs and state of the art technology on every case, regardless. Obamacare and state-run medicine rewards the opposite, prescribing cheaper drugs, rewarding people who avoid referrals to specialists, rewarding visits to mid-level practitioners rather than MDs, etc. I'd say these iterations look more at triaging resources rather than what's "best for the patient."
Given the discussion with "Tradition" I completely disagree with you, and maintain my colleagues believe the same.
While "mr. tradition" may be a pencil pusher for some nursing home consortium, I don't for a second believe he understands at all what "healthcare " means.
Looking at the original discussion of reassigning staff based on the needs of the patient that's precisely what we do here at UIHC. The needs of the patient come before the egos of the staff.
Is that NOT what you do? Isn't that what you learned in Iowa City?
Edit: yes, we work within the bounds of what is afforded; however, that doesn't mean we don't switch staff in order to accommodate the patient or maybe code procedures differently.
Pencil necked geeks like Tradition who know absolutely nothing about healthcare are an abomination to the healthcare system as a whole.
He's worthless as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
Take that up with the EEOC. I don't make federal laws and regs, I just recommend how to comply with them.
Iowa City is 87 percent white. You have absolutely no idea what it's like in less rural areas of the country to staff a healthcare operation.
Oh, and I don't push pencils. I almost never write anything down. That stuff can be subpoenaed.
Re-read your post. You said the healthcare PROGRAM looks out what's best for the patient. Not the healthcare PROVIDER which I am.
Don't question what I do. I always try to do the best for each patient I see, and almost every time it's within the confines of the healthcare PROGRAM. Every time I see a patient I make a decision based on what I'm trained is medically best, and then I'm tailoring based on healthcare law, state programs, insurance companies, drug plans and other limitations. It's not my fault you either fail to recognize the difference between a provider and a healthcare program, or that you cannot articulate that difference.
And unfortunately MSTP, those "pencil necked geeks who know nothing about healthcare" as you allege him to be are precisely those managing healthcare programs and entitiies (including the UIHC) and those making moronic health care laws as Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and other politicians have. "Pencil necked geeks" are the rule, not the exception.
Of course it is. At least of the serious hardcore Dem base. Have you not called the GOP field for being nutty? Huey Gray? Every diehard liberal on this board? That's been your go-to card as long as I've been on this board.
That sounds like a very limited sample to me. Even within that sample I've pointed out some like Cruz and Carson are crazy, some like Rubio are dangerous but not crazy and some like Kasich as just wrong but neither crazy nor particularly dangerous. And Trump is just damn fun.
Perhaps I didn't say it right. I was talking specifically about the assignment of staff, and nothing further. I have no issues with nurses/staff switching patients based on the wishes of the patient. If a woman doesn't want me as her physician because I'm a white man I'm going to find someone else for her.
I apologize if I came across in a negative manner regarding your own practice. That was not my intention.
The measure failed to pass by a wide margin.
http://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/HERO-results-6608562.php
http://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/HERO-results-6608562.php
it failed to pass but that won't stop Obama from going around the law and using the supreme court as a hammer
I don't know why any state or local election even happened at all anywhere in the usa when we have the tyrants in DC who do what they will -anyways
I don't know why any state or local election even happened at all anywhere in the usa when we have the tyrants in DC who do what they will -anyways
Don't worry OiT, we will rescue Texas from themselves again.
