Was talking about this whole railroad debacle and the president's handling of it with a friend of mine today, he made an interesting point. He said, "When you take away the right to strike, you're forcing workers to give their labor regardless of their conditions, you have instituted wage slavery."

Nope, not ignoring congress at all. At no point did I give Republicans a bye. The laws I mentioned were signed by a Democratic president however. The recovery that I mentioned with Obama was under a unified democratic government.

I am ignoring Biden’s plan until it becomes a reality.

I don’t know what your problem is, but you’re obviously more into proving my opinion wrong than having a discussion based on good faith. I don’t give a shit what you think. You want to root for Dems like they’re you’re local football team, have fun. I think it’s naive, but it’s your life and you’re allowed to believe what you want.

Look, I don’t need you to agree with me. This is my opinion. It’s based on my experience and my knowledge. You’re entitled to have a different one. My point is that neither party has a track record of advocating for the working class in both words and actions.

There has been a steady decline in the share of wealth controlled by the middle class for decades. This has occurred under administrations of both parties. The economy was great under Clinton, it was also the period of the greatest redistribution of wealth to the upper class in the last 50 years.

You’re allowed to think the democrats have the working classes interests at heart if you want. I’m pretty convinced that while their words appear to, their record doesn’t. Was it a Republican president that kicked thousands of people off welfare with the welfare reform bill? Was it a Republican president that lowered the capital gains tax? Was it a Republican president that presided over the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis where 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1%?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to do. Like, are you trying to have a discussion based on good faith? Or are you trying to prove my opinion wrong and yours right? Because it seems more the latter than the former.

I mean, Ted Cruz voted for the sick days as a separate bill. So we can postulate whether or not the republicans would have “crashed the economy” rather than give some blue collar guys a few sick days, but the bottom line is, we’ll never know, because the fight wasn’t framed that way.

The right to strike is exactly that, a right. It’s part of the NLRA signed in 1935 or something. You may be comfortable stripping rights away from people in the name of the economy, but I’m not. If we can’t engineer an healthy economy based on a fair exchange between labor and capital on a leveled playing field, then I don’t give a shit if we have one or not.

You may be able to convince me that, in general, the Democrats are incompetent rather than complicit, but the end result when it comes to income inequality and the decline of the working class is the same, and so my original point is the same. Some Dems are awesome and have their hearts in the right place; I’m thinking specifically of Warren and AOC. In general, establishment Dems don’t have a great track record.

My argument is absolutely flawed in that it ignores important social issues like bodily autonomy, but my original point wasn’t that the Dems were just as bad as Republicans when it comes to everything. It’s my opinion that we have a very flawed political system that basically presents the average American with a choice between awful and bad.

I mean, we disagree. What are you gonna do?

You want to go around thinking that modern day democrats are more like FDR than conservatives from 40 years ago, go ahead. Simple fact is though, had they wanted to, sick days could have been included in the bill. Stop acting like the only choice in front of them was to fuck workers.

Okay, okay. I admitted I was wrong when I said that they misused the word. What more do you want?

What I should have said is that I was confused and worried when I read the title of the article. Then I read the article and realized what they were referring to was a single lead reading, similar to Apple Watch.

I Don’t know what equipment medics have where you are, but I’ve only had them bring in 12 leads. How do you diagnose a STEMI prehospital with a 3 lead? Nobody in any hospital I’ve ever worked at or in any class in medical school has ever referred to anything other than a 12 lead as an ekg. A rhythm strip is technically an ekg, but nobody calls it that. That was the source of my initial confusion.

I mean a democratic house and president stripped them of their right to negotiate a suitable deal, so does it matter at this point who they vote for?

No, you’re right. Just wasn’t sure you’re in medicine, so was explaining why I read that the way I did.

I mean, you’re right. I said you’re right. What do you want, a medal? I was simply explaining to you why I interpreted the headline the way I did.

Technically you are correct, that fits the definition of an ekg. When someone in the modern medical field uses the term ekg, it is referring to a 12 lead ekg. EKG’s of single leads are simply referred to as rhythm or monitoring strips. Like, if an attending physician asked a resident to bring them a patients ekg, and the resident showed up with a rhythm strip, well let’s just say that that resident would likely be humiliated in front of their colleagues in the very near future. Literally, no doctor in America will refer to a single lead tracing as an ekg.

So there’s the literal definition and the way it’s actually used. I identified with the original comment because I am reading that statement as a physician, not a layperson.

The comment I made about criteria was a joke that would only be funny to a very few people that read it. It was not meant to be taken as a serious comment, but sarcasm doesn’t always translate into text well.

Edit: better grammar

I think they’re misusing ekg instead of calling it a single lead monitor, similar to what apple has now. They’re decent enough for measuring rate and something like afib, but that’s about it.

The headline is misleading, I thought the same exact thing as you when I read it. Like, does this machine even know what Scarbossa’s criteria are?

Why are so many people getting triggered by this article?