Opinion Poll: Political Affiliation of Physicians in the US

Good poll. I think most pre-meds are liberal!

Definitely conservative (especially since 1993/4 when Hillary attempted to do her thing). http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H01 Those graphs even include donations by nurses, whose union is very democrat leaning. This year it's still about even but it's early.

I don't know why, but on a whole, physicians seem pretty conservative. Obviously there are tons of docs who are liberal, but I think the profession in general leans a little to the right.

TheMemoirist said:

I don't know why, but on a whole, physicians seem pretty conservative. Obviously there are tons of docs who are liberal, but I think the profession in general leans a little to the right.

Click to expand...

wow, I'm glad to know that there are conservatives in medicine.

I can't answer the poll because I'm very different on different issues. I'm very liberal on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, secularism, getting out of Iraq etc. But I'm also more conservative on other issues, the most being gun rights. Although I agree on more background checks + child safety equipment requirements on all gun sales, I DON'T believe in banning guns, semi-auto or not (as Obama does with semi-autos). I don't think that makes me "Moderate" either because I'm pretty far from middle depending on the issue...

Katatonic said:

I can't answer the poll because I'm very different on different issues. I'm very liberal on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, secularism, getting out of Iraq etc. But I'm also more conservative on other issues, the most being gun rights. Although I agree on more background checks + child safety equipment requirements on all gun sales, I DON'T believe in banning guns, semi-auto or not (as Obama does with semi-autos). I don't think that makes me "Moderate" either because I'm pretty far from middle depending on the issue...

Click to expand...

The question wasn't about your opinion. Obviously, most premeds are young and will tilt towards the liberal side. Physicians probably were also once tender liberals before becoming a working member of society whose industry was targeted by nationalization or at least significant federal control.

pntgrd said:

The question wasn't about your opinion. Obviously, most premeds are young and will tilt towards the liberal side. Physicians probably were also once tender liberals before becoming a working member of society whose industry was targeted by nationalization or at least significant federal control.

Click to expand...

At what point in their development do they stop making wanton generalizations?

pntgrd said:

The question wasn't about your opinion. Obviously, most premeds are young and will tilt towards the liberal side. Physicians probably were also once tender liberals before becoming a working member of society whose industry was targeted by nationalization or at least significant federal control.

Click to expand...

I suppose I misunderstood the point of the thread. I thought you wanted to know Pre-Med political affiliations. Are we supposed to project what we believe the majority of physicians in the U.S. are? I don't think that would be very useful or responsible for me to try and group a whole career field into one political affiliation.

pntgrd said:

The question wasn't about your opinion. Obviously, most premeds are young and will tilt towards the liberal side. Physicians probably were also once tender liberals before becoming a working member of society whose industry was targeted by nationalization or at least significant federal control.

Click to expand...

Nice... you managed to make one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on SDN . Apparently everyone is born naive (read liberal) but eventually grows up (read becomes a conservative).

Drogba said:

Nice... you managed to make one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on SDN . Apparently everyone is born naive (read liberal) but eventually grows up (read becomes a conservative).

Click to expand...

I never said anyone was naive. I was stating facts. MOST 18-24 year olds are liberal. MOST adults in the medical profession are conservative. Why do you accuse me of saying things I did not. I did not say "everyone". The whole question of the thread is about the affiliation of MOST physicians.

Tired said:

Voting is for chumps.

Click to expand...

Who like to have their vote count; as one among millions and millions and millions of others.

yep, most premeds are liberal, and then that percentage slowly starts to shrink as they see green.

I voted moderate. I am actually an old school conservative. Small government, low taxes, low spending. But I am not at all a social conservative and wouldn't want to be confused with those neocon wingnuts who run the republican party now.

Katatonic said:

I can't answer the poll because I'm very different on different issues. I'm very liberal on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, secularism, getting out of Iraq etc. But I'm also more conservative on other issues, the most being gun rights. Although I agree on more background checks + child safety equipment requirements on all gun sales, I DON'T believe in banning guns, semi-auto or not (as Obama does with semi-autos). I don't think that makes me "Moderate" either because I'm pretty far from middle depending on the issue...

Click to expand...

I'm quite conservative on the social issues.

AlXguy said:

I'm quite conservative on the social issues.

Click to expand...

If I'm reading this right, Armani Exchange guy is conservative on social issues? That just seems kind of funny, knowing the A|X demographic and all.... If I'm reading your screen name wrong, I'm sorry.

Katatonic said:

Although I agree on more background checks + child safety equipment requirements on all gun sales, I DON'T believe in banning guns, semi-auto or not (as Obama does with semi-autos). I don't think that makes me "Moderate" either because I'm pretty far from middle depending on the issue...

Click to expand...

I really think they should make shooting tasers more fun so that we can get rid of this insane law that allows people to have guns. Maybe fully automatic tasers that shoot taser bullets that don't penetrate the skin and don't remain attached to the gun, but still knock people the **** out. And to give those rednecks that 'real gun' feel, the taser can make that loud gun blasting sound after every shot.

There is no reason a civilized nation like us should allow our citizens to have guns when we now have the technology to defend ourselves from other crazy citizens without killing them. If people just want guns to blow **** up, then they can keep fireworks like m80s legal so they can get off on that.

SketchLazy said:

I really think they should make shooting tasers more fun so that we can get rid of this insane law that allows people to have guns. Maybe fully automatic tasers that shoot taser bullets that don't penetrate the skin and don't remain attached to the gun, but still knock people the **** out. And to give those rednecks that 'real gun' feel, the taser can make that loud gun blasting sound after every shot.

There is no reason a civilized nation like us should allow our citizens to have guns when we now have the technology to defend ourselves from other crazy citizens without killing them. If people just want guns to blow **** up, then they can keep fireworks like m80s legal so they can get off on that.

Click to expand...

Owning a gun is not only for self-defense. I own an AR-15 that remains locked up at all times unless I'm at the range shooting in an organized competition or practicing for one. Also, rednecks are not the only people who own and enjoy guns. You've earned the narrow-minded award for tonight I think. Congrats.

Katatonic said:

Owning a gun is not only for self-defense. I own an AR-15 that remains locked up at all times unless I'm at the range shooting in an organized competition or practicing for one. Also, rednecks are not the only people who own and enjoy guns. You've earned the narrow-minded award for tonight I think. Congrats.

Click to expand...

Yeah, evidently having a gun is also used for going into strip malls and schools and shooting everyone in sight too. Just because you have your sanity and lock your gun, doesn't mean that everybody does, and for that very reason there should be no guns allowed for personal use. People that pass background checks have gotten guns and used them to do crazy things. It may not be fair that the stupidity of some should take away from the 'fun' of all the rest who are apparently more than just rednecks. In this case, I think we should grow up as a society and stop whining about our rights to guns. Missing out on target practice should be a small price to pay for not worrying about losing thirty-two people in a pointless crazed shooting rampage.

SketchLazy said:

Yeah, evidently having a gun is also used for going into strip malls and schools and shooting everyone in sight too. Just because you have your sanity and lock your gun, doesn't mean that everybody does, and for that very reason there should be no guns allowed for personal use. People that pass background checks have gotten guns and used them to do crazy things. It may not be fair that the stupidity of some should take away from the 'fun' of all the rest who are apparently more than just rednecks, but in this case, I think we should grow up as a society and stop whining about our rights to guns. Missing out on target practice should be a small price to pay for not worrying about losing thirty-two people in a pointless crazed shooting rampage.

Click to expand...

You are the most ignorant person I have met in a long time. Go back through history and see what society became once the citizens were disarmed. They became enslaved in dictatorships and led by tyrants. What do you think one of the first things done to the Jews in WW2 was? Before any of the concentration camps, ghettos, or suffering of the holocaust they were disarmed. Although they saw this as just something they needed to comply with to prevent further trouble this was the first step to ensure there could be no resistance. Having an armed society is a basic right to ensure that you are a slave to no one. You are ignorant to think that because we have had a good run as a nation that we are immune from conflict, civil war, revolution. Once you give up your right to defend yourself, your land and your freedom you are nothing more than a slave. We have a tremendous nation but don't be too ignorant to think that we will always be like this. Imagine you a situation like Katrina in New Orleans. Are you going to wait for the police who were incapacitated to save your sorry *** from the gangs?

The right to bear arms is to allow you to defend yourself from all threats, foreign and domestic, including our very own government. If the government becomes no longer for the people, then the people should have the right and ability to overthrow this government. The founding fathers knew this because had they been disarmed there would not have been a revolutionary war. Don't be so blinded with ignorance that everything will be so perfect in our society forever.

catsensi said:

You are the most ignorant person I have met in a long time. Go back through history and see what society became once the citizens were disarmed. They became enslaved in dictatorships and led by tyrants. What do you think one of the first things done to the Jews in WW2 was? Before any of the concentration camps, ghettos, or suffering of the holocaust they were disarmed. Although they saw this as just something they needed to comply with to prevent further trouble this was the first step to ensure there could be no resistance. Having an armed society is a basic right to ensure that you are a slave to no one. You are ignorant to think that because we have had a good run as a nation that we are immune from conflict, civil war, revolution. Once you give up your right to defend yourself, your land and your freedom you are nothing more than a slave. We have a tremendous nation but don't be too ignorant to think that we will always be like this. Imagine you a situation like Katrina in New Orleans. Are you going to wait for the police who were incapacitated to save your sorry *** from the gangs?

The right to bear arms is to allow you to defend yourself from all threats, foreign and domestic, including our very own government. If the government becomes no longer for the people, then the people should have the right and ability to overthrow this government. The founding fathers knew this because had they been disarmed there would not have been a revolutionary war. Don't be so blinded with ignorance that everything will be so perfect in our society forever.

Click to expand...

I don't have time to respond, but this basically sums up what I was going to say

People who use guns to kill people will still be able to obtain guns if they are banned. People still obtain drugs even though they are illegal. All that would do is prevent law-abiding people like myself from being armed to defend myself.

catsensi said:

You are the most ignorant person I have met in a long time. Go back through history and see what society became once the citizens were disarmed. They became dictatorships and led by tyrants. Having an armed society is a basic right to ensure that you are a slave to no one. You are ignorant to think that because we have had a good run as a nation that we are immune from conflict, civil war, revolution. Once you give up your right to defend yourself, your land and your freedom you are nothing more than a slave. We have a tremendous nation but don't be too ignorant to think that we will always be like this. Imagine you a situation like Katrina in New Orleans. Are you going to wait for the police who were incapacitated to save your sorry *** from the gangs?

The right to bear arms is to allow you to defend yourself from all threats, foreign and domestic. The founding fathers knew this because had they been disarmed there would not have been a revolutionary war. Don't be so blinded with ignorance that everything will be so perfect in our society forever.

Click to expand...

You are seriously confused about my argument. I am not saying that the United States should not be armed. It is quite clear that every country needs arms to protect its sovereignty. Giving up a right to bear arms as a country is very different from giving up the right to bear FIRE arms as civilians. The military should keep its weaponry and should keep military people trained in their use. I am saying as private civilians we do not have the need to have guns anymore especially with the new kinds of self-defense technology we have now. No where did I say we should give up the right to defend ourselves as citizens. I just said we should give up the right to defend ourselves with FIRE arms considering other forms are now just as effective. During Katrina, a taser would have protected someone just as well as a gun would have. The UK and Japan seem to be doing fine without civilian gun rights because like us, they are in a civilized enough position to function without them.

I'm not even sure how to answer your outdated revolutionary argument about the right to bear arms. Due to today's weaponry and technology, any right to bear arms as self defense against the government is an illusion. Back then, the government had metal canons and rifles. And your rag-tag team of green mountain musketeers had rifles and could pose a threat to a forming or collapsing government with that kind of weaponry. But today, if the government felt like doing some serious crap and we were thrown into civil war, that Glock 27 that you bought to shoot paper targets at the firing ranges won't protect you against all the **** the government has. At this point in time, if the civilians felt a need to have a violent uprising against the government, the government would undoubtedly win. But luckily, I believe in the stability of our government and the civility of our country as a whole. I feel that any i internal conflicts will be resolved with diplomacy and democracy rather than bullets.

Katatonic said:

I don't have time to respond, but this basically sums up what I was going to say

People who use guns to kill people will still be able to obtain guns if they are banned. People still obtain drugs even though they are illegal. All that would do is prevent law-abiding people like myself from being armed to defend myself.

Click to expand...

That's an easy hypothetical argument to use considering the situation. It's so easy to say that if guns were banned people would still get them to shoot people up. Because, you know, it's hypothetical. But what about currently? It's not hypothetical that people (and recently, A LOT of people) have gotten guns legally and shot people (and A LOT of people) up for no apparent reason. And the rules for most states are that you have to have your gun unloaded and locked while outside the house. I'm sure that while someone is going on a shooting rampage, a law-abiding citizen like yourself will have sufficient time to open your trunk, unlock your ammo box, unlock your gun lock, load your clip, and shoot the person shooting at you. I mean that's what you train for right?

catsensi said:

You are the most ignorant person I have met in a long time. Go back through history and see what society became once the citizens were disarmed. They became enslaved in dictatorships and led by tyrants. What do you think one of the first things done to the Jews in WW2 was? Before any of the concentration camps, ghettos, or suffering of the holocaust they were disarmed. Although they saw this as just something they needed to comply with to prevent further trouble this was the first step to ensure there could be no resistance. Having an armed society is a basic right to ensure that you are a slave to no one. You are ignorant to think that because we have had a good run as a nation that we are immune from conflict, civil war, revolution. Once you give up your right to defend yourself, your land and your freedom you are nothing more than a slave. We have a tremendous nation but don't be too ignorant to think that we will always be like this. Imagine you a situation like Katrina in New Orleans. Are you going to wait for the police who were incapacitated to save your sorry *** from the gangs?

The right to bear arms is to allow you to defend yourself from all threats, foreign and domestic, including our very own government. If the government becomes no longer for the people, then the people should have the right and ability to overthrow this government. The founding fathers knew this because had they been disarmed there would not have been a revolutionary war. Don't be so blinded with ignorance that everything will be so perfect in our society forever.

Click to expand...

Right, because clearly all the other modern nations like Britain are struggling to keep their governments under control what with their lack of guns.

zmeister22 said:

If I'm reading this right, Armani Exchange guy is conservative on social issues? That just seems kind of funny, knowing the A|X demographic and all.... If I'm reading your screen name wrong, I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the first name that came into my mind when I was singing up for the account . If only there was some way to change it, I would do it.

"It's so easy to say that if guns were banned people would still get them to shoot people up."

It is not hypothetical. Guns are practically banned in Mexico and Brazil, but gun crime is very very high. Criminals aren't known for abiding by gun laws.

jlq3d3 said:

"It's so easy to say that if guns were banned people would still get them to shoot people up."

It is not hypothetical. Guns are practically banned in Mexico and Brazil, but gun crime is very very high. Criminals aren't known for abiding by gun laws.

Click to expand...

The Gun Control Bill was not passed in Brazil in 2005. And with all do respect with Mexico, they have problems with law enforcement in the first place. They may have gun laws as strict as the US but what does that mean when they have corrupt officials and not enough police? I don't think the comparison is valid here.

SketchLazy said:

The Gun Control Bill was not passed in Brazil in 2005. And with all do respect with Mexico, they have problems with law enforcement in the first place. They may have gun laws as strict as the US but what does that mean when they have corrupt officials and not enough police? I don't think the comparison is valid here.

Click to expand...

It is against the law to run over people intentionally or drive drunk with your car, but cars are not banned, just the illegal act. I don't see why guns should be banned unless used illegally.

jlq3d3 said:

It is against the law to run over people intentionally or drive drunk with your car, but cars are not banned, just the illegal act. I don't see why guns should be banned unless used illegally.

Click to expand...

It's against the law to kill anyone intentionally, regardless of what you are using. It stands to reason that a lot of things shouldn't be made illegal just because they can kill someone. For example: a baseball bat can kill someone, a screwdriver, a line of fishing wire, a beer bottle, a tire iron, a plastic bag, a pillow, a tennis racket, the sharp end of a ball point pen, the blunt end of the hardcover of the King James Bible, etc... Obviously, we don't make everything illegal that can kill people. But we do make some things illegal that would more easily facilitate murder. For example, rocket launchers are not legal. Grenades and high explosives are not legal for civilians. Using your reasoning, they should be legal because they only kill people when someone intentionally uses them to kill people. Does that make any sense? And that's why guns should be made illegal for civilians too. The sole person of a gun is to maim or kill. It used to be a necessity for self defense, but now we have other means of self defense that are more affective and don't result in collateral damage.

For those of you who enjoy shooting at things to prove accuracy, why don't you try throwing **** at stuff instead. You know. With that thing on either side of your shoulder they call arms. Hell. If that's too boring, try throwing **** at ducks. I would be really impressed and I'm sure a lot of other people would be too if you hit a duck from 100 meters away. Shooting it though...not so much.

Real men shoot guns!

...apparently.

Panda Bear said:

You folks know that the UK has one of the highest crime rates in the developed world, right, and that crime jumped substantially when guins were banned?

Click to expand...

Muder rate by country:
#24 US
...
#48 UK

Rape rate:
#9 US
#13 UK

Assaults:
#6 US
#8 UK

All violent crime is more prevalent in the US, especially murder.

Total Crime:

#6 UK (85 per 1,000)
#8 US (80 per 1,000)

US isn't far back when all crimes are considered either.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Also, the British and most of Europe live in a "soft" dictatorship more than a democracies. They have very little input into their political process which is why the French are always rioting.

Click to expand...

Nice political analysis! Americans certainly feel they have much more input in their political process. Certainly this explains the amazing voter turnout we have in the US (~50%).

There are, additionally, in almost every major European city, from London to Rome, areas into which the police dare not go for fear of uncontrollable lawlessness mostly the result of unassimilated immigrants from the third world.

Click to expand...

And based on what would you make that conclusion? In any case, US ghettos seem to be pretty "lawless" and abandoned by the police as well... Drug dealers even shout the brand names of their product on the street corner to attract customers while they conduct open air drug deals all day.

Panda Bear said:

"Les banlieues" on the outskirts of Paris or Toulon are an order of magnitude worse than the worst Ghetto in the the United States with the added benefit that the French really have no idea how to control their unemployed, violent immigrant population and have, instead, surrendered. Same in the German Federal Republic. Same in Britainistan. So sorry.

Click to expand...

Nice way to ignore my entire post and provide "compelling" evidence of your own at the same time. Your bolded statement is particularly persuasive.

Panda Bear said:

Or look at it like this, every man should know how to use a chainsaw, how to place and finish concrete, and how to effectively use the normal complement of power tools. Maybe these things are not absolutely required but the idea is that men should not be metrosexual narcissists. Life requires balance.

Click to expand...

What a lost world we live in where most men don't know how to place and finish concrete. That skill is certainly relevant in the context of my life, as is using a chainsaw, building sh**, kicking a** and shootin'. The US is losing its manliness, better integrate power tools into the elementary school curriculum before we have a bunch of pansies running the country.

Panda Bear said:

You don't read the news much, do you? What do you think, exactly, is going on in much of Western Europe nowadays?

Click to expand...

How's this for news:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/special/gun_toll/

392 gunned down last year in philadelphia. 282 in baltimore, 209 in new orleans (city of <300k). Compare that with just over 1000 murders in ALL of France.

I do read the news and I am aware that Europe, western and southern especially, is having trouble with immigration but the US is singular in its urban decay among the devloped world. We also have some nice barrios in the US populated by recent immigrants.

Academic: liberal
Regular: conservative.

If you describe yourself as "liberal" or "conservative", you are kind of being an idiot. If you buy any ideology wholesale, you are not using your brain. How can someone agree with the conservative agenda 100% of the time? It can only be because they cannot think for themselves.

Don't be a douche, make up your own mind. Gross generalizations are very, very dangerous.

Panda Bear said:

100 meters is nothing. I can hit man-sized targets at 800 yards with "iron sights" (no scope) with my AR-15 maybe four out of five times fom a prone position with a tight sling. And I can put nine out of ten in the head at 500 yards (on a good day, of course). I have an M1 Garand with a "match" barrel that is a real tack driver but I haven't shot it past 200 yards so I don't really know how good it is. I get very tight groups at 200 yards so I imagine it is just as good at 500.

If you think competitive shooting doesn't take any skill you display the typical SDN syndrome, that is, being an expert on something you know nothing about. (Medical school, residency, medical practice...you know, the usual things).

Click to expand...

Haha, I loved this quote because I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. I've never shot 800yds before but 500 prone I keep a tight group as long as wind is steady & mirage isn't going crazy. I have a poster of your Avatar in my room that was bought at the national matches at Camp Perry, Ohio last summer.

TouchOfGrey said:

If you describe yourself as "liberal" or "conservative", you are kind of being an idiot. If you buy any ideology wholesale, you are not using your brain. How can someone agree with the conservative agenda 100% of the time? It can only be because they cannot think for themselves.

Don't be a douche, make up your own mind. Gross generalizations are very, very dangerous.

Click to expand...

So you are a moderate?????

So are most physicians in favor or against a public health care option?

Skrubs said:

So are most physicians in favor or against a public health care option?

Click to expand...

Against.

The US is broke, and a public option will mean high taxes for cost-ineffective approaches to many of our health woes.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/15/1355

SketchLazy said:

But today, if the government felt like doing some serious crap and we were thrown into civil war, that Glock 27 that you bought to shoot paper targets at the firing ranges won't protect you against all the **** the government has. At this point in time, if the civilians felt a need to have a violent uprising against the government, the government would undoubtedly win.

Click to expand...

Oh God, I am so glad someone finally brought this up. We are far past the era where an armed citizenry can stand up to its government. You can own all the assault rifles/small arms you want and shoot as many targets as you want from 800m off, but when the government decides its had enough you, you won't last a second against an Abrams, XM312 or one of these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_force

The MOST you could be capable of is turning your state into an American version of Iraq, and even then you're not using those guns you love so much, just improvised explosives

What's holding the U.S back from turning into a tyrannical state isn't that people own small arms, it's that the armed forces tend to be much more loyal to the citizenry itself than to the head of state. Also, keep in mind we already have a well armed militia. It's called the National Guard.

The reason the right to bear arms wasn't a big deal in colonial times was because **** back then took a minute of preparation before you could even let off one shot. I'm sure if Benjamin Franklin, etc knew the citizenry had access to a firearm that could let off 700 rounds/min they'd rethink their policy about assault rifles.