It’s variable, but some people have one where the upper lip connects to the gums and another one for the bottom lip. So an AMAB can have up to 4 of them.

As a medical student with an absurd amount of student loans, this stuff is very important to me.

No, that was applicable to anyone enrolled in the SAVE plan. If you made more money than that, you would have a small payment which was limited to 5% of your discretionary income (a number that excludes a portion of your income as non-discretionary for living expenses, etc). So if you made 75k/year, your payment would be 5% of the amount not designated as necessary living expenses. I’m not positive on the exact numbers, but I think they exclude about 60k before they start calculating your payment amount.

That’s basically what the SAVE plan did. If you enrolled in it and made qualifying income-based payments that didn’t cover the interest on the loan, the interest wouldn’t capitalize and it would still count as a qualifying payment for PSLF. It wasn’t loan forgiveness, but it ensured that payers wouldn’t have their loan balances skyrocket while making income-driven repayments.

Unfortunately, most health insurance plans have a separate sub-company manage the pharmacy benefits and we have absolutely zero way of accessing their systems. It would be lovely if we could see what your insurance would cover immediately as we prescribe it, but that also runs into the problem of us not having any control over the actual pharmacy and their billing and pricing.

And as long as CPR machines are obscenely expensive and difficult to obtain and maintain for a lot of smaller hospitals and EMS systems.

Here’s the problem with that: it relies on things like the LUCAS CPR assist machine which doesn’t fit on a lot of people. I’ve done CPR on a lot of people, and only a handful of them would have even fit in a LUCAS in the first place.

In this case, it’s the medical ethics standards that have been discussed, litigated, and debated to hell and back before landing on the accepted standard. So it’s the physicians, lawyers, ethics experts, legislators, and judicial system that agreed on what is best.

The issue is that we do provide education and try to have these conversations, but the information is also available in layman’s terms from reputable organizations like the CDC. It all falls on deaf ears though. There is no evidence that shows any benefit for a delayed vaccination schedule with just a tiny number of exceptions for rare immune disorders. The other part of it is that it can become a burden on the clinic to deal with a bunch of extra appointments and having to fill out all the paperwork for the school/daycare explaining why the under/un-immunized child should be allowed in school anyways…and when you see 20 patients a day in the office and have another couple dozen phone calls, messages, and consults to deal with every day as well, spending the time to convince someone to accept scientific consensus in the place of the facebook posts they read is a tall order.

Yes. This exactly.