2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

The USPS has delivered >99.8% of the mail I have ever sent/received, and lapses have been extraordinarily rare. I use FedEx quite a bit now, and they're fine. I do note that Overnight/Express offered by the USPS is significantly cheaper than FedEx, and in my anecdotal experience just as reliable.

That's because what you pay at the Post Office does not reflect the true cost of mailing and shipping. Of course, the USPS doesn't pull that money out of thin air--our federal tax dollars have to be spent to make up the difference.

And my challenge remains. Go to the Post Office at 4:30pm and tell me how that experience works out for you. Then go to a FedEx or UPS store.

Let me close this thread;

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.



Thomas Jefferson

Lol. ^ Seems like sound logic to me, no? So what's the problem?

idk if this has been talked about before, but I can't believe Ron Paul is against abortion. How many of you guys (med students/doctors) are pro-life/pro-choice, and why? I'm just curious to see how much your scientific + evolutionary side reasons with your emotions + religious views.

I don't mean to be ignorant, but I am personally pro-choice, and frankly, I can't believe that Ron Paul, an ob/gyn would be pro-life. (I read his account, and I saw the interviews. So I understand why he takes the position, but what I don't understand is why his emotions outweigh his scientific judgement.)

Before I get flamed, #1 I don't mean to be ignorant; if I am being ignorant, then enlighten me with your knowledge/experiences, #2 I don't mean to be offensive, and #3 I'd appreciate civil responses.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

And yet you want those same people to run a healthcare system to an even larger degree than is already done?

WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That's because what you pay at the Post Office does not reflect the true cost of mailing and shipping. Of course, the USPS doesn't pull that money out of thin air--our federal tax dollars have to be spent to make up the difference.

By law, the post office cannot use tax dollars for operations.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

And my challenge remains. Go to the Post Office at 4:30pm and tell me how that experience works out for you. Then go to a FedEx or UPS store.

Uh, my trips to the post office usually go like this: I wait in line depending on the number of customers, a clerk takes my package and asks me how I want to ship it, and then I pay for the transaction by credit card. I am invariably given the option to purchase stamps.

When I go to FedEx or UPS it usually goes like this: I wait in line depending on the number of customers, a clerk takes my package and asks me how I want to ship it, and then I pay for the transaction by credit card.

Some FedEx/UPS locations near my home have better hours than my local post office, others don't. The USPS is a bit cheaper and still delivers mail automatically on Saturday. I use whichever suits my needs, all without ranting about the government or capitalism.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

By law, the post office cannot use tax dollars for operations.



Uh, my trips to the post office usually go like this: I wait in line depending on the number of customers, a clerk takes my package and asks me how I want to ship it, and then I pay for the transaction by credit card. I am invariably given the option to purchase stamps.

When I go to FedEx or UPS it usually goes like this: I wait in line depending on the number of customers, a clerk takes my package and asks me how I want to ship it, and then I pay for the transaction by credit card.

Some FedEx/UPS locations near my home have better hours than my local post office, others don't. The USPS is a bit cheaper and still delivers mail automatically on Saturday. I use whichever suits my needs, all without ranting about the government or capitalism.

Yeah, I've had this same experience. USPS is cheaper; that's what I use. You know, once a year. In fact, using USPS for mailing in deposit checks was the first time I'd used it in a long time.

Originally Posted by Thego2guy

Lol. ^ Seems like sound logic to me, no? So what's the problem?

idk if this has been talked about before, but I can't believe Ron Paul is against abortion. How many of you guys (med students/doctors) are pro-life/pro-choice, and why? I'm just curious to see how much your scientific + evolutionary side reasons with your emotions + religious views.

I don't mean to be ignorant, but I am personally pro-choice, and frankly, I can't believe that Ron Paul, an ob/gyn would be pro-life. (I read his account, and I saw the interviews. So I understand why he takes the position, but what I don't understand is why his emotions outweigh his scientific judgement.)

Before I get flamed, #1 I don't mean to be ignorant; if I am being ignorant, then enlighten me with your knowledge/experiences, #2 I don't mean to be offensive, and #3 I'd appreciate civil responses.

From my understanding, most supporters of abortion rights base their arguments on social (women's reproductive right's) and economic considerations rather than science, while most opponents of abortion base their arguments on either religious belief, science (gestational time period of organ development), or philosophy (i.e, individual rights of the fetal human) depending upon the person or group.

Originally Posted by krc22

From my understanding, most supporters of abortion rights base their arguments on social (women's reproductive right's) and economic considerations rather than science, while most opponents of abortion base their arguments on either religious belief, science (gestational time period of organ development), or philosophy (i.e, individual rights of the fetal human) depending upon the person or group.

I would say that science, religion, and individual rights come into play on both sides of the issue.

At what point does the fetus become an independent human being? The answer is a continuum and that's where the debate comes from.

With science, is a developing fetus independent if it could not survive outside the mother's body (even with technology)? Many pro-choice people are less and less comfortable with abortion as the pregnancy goes on. But at the same time, there is always a potential life. That's science too. And whether the fetus is an independent human being and has rights plays into this argument.

It varies with religion as well. I talked with a Jewish physician who told me that many Jewish people don't consider a fetus as an independent human being until it is actually born. Therefore, Jewish people tend to be more liberal on abortion rights than many Christians who may take the life begins at conception approach.

It's complicated which is why politics will never solve it.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about your implicit and explicit attacks against the idea that a healthcare system without significant government involvement JUST MIGHT be more preferable to the current system or a single payer system (which I perceive that you support based on your posts).

Let's stay with it, chief.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

Originally Posted by sotto voce

No. States can extract money from (i.e., tax) their citizens to fund public research. Groups of states can pool their resources to form research conglomerates. State-funded public universities, state-funded research centers, and the private market can collaborate to drive innovation and lower costs.

A great example is the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor. This geographic region stretches from Columbia, Missouri, to Manhattan, Kansas. Within this region, you find over 200 animal health companies, including the headquarters of over 40 animal science giants (Bayer HealthCare Animal Health, Hill's Pet Nutrition, etc.). Schools such as Kanas City Community College, Johnson County Community College, Kansas State University, and the University of Missouri-Columbia conduct research and provide talented, educated individuals for those companies. This public-private relationship is fostered by local and state governments, who provide tax incentives and assist in coordination. No federal government needed, thank you very much.

I'm not sure I understand how your example of Bayer Animal Health and Johnson County Community College show you can have great advancements in medical research without government funding. I have never seen either of these entities mentioned in any NEJM or JAMA articles I've read.

Originally Posted by Thego2guy

Lol. ^ Seems like sound logic to me, no? So what's the problem?

idk if this has been talked about before, but I can't believe Ron Paul is against abortion. How many of you guys (med students/doctors) are pro-life/pro-choice, and why? I'm just curious to see how much your scientific + evolutionary side reasons with your emotions + religious views.

I don't mean to be ignorant, but I am personally pro-choice, and frankly, I can't believe that Ron Paul, an ob/gyn would be pro-life. (I read his account, and I saw the interviews. So I understand why he takes the position, but what I don't understand is why his emotions outweigh his scientific judgement.)

Before I get flamed, #1 I don't mean to be ignorant; if I am being ignorant, then enlighten me with your knowledge/experiences, #2 I don't mean to be offensive, and #3 I'd appreciate civil responses.

The 11th reason: there are still some people who do not subscribe to the belief that government should be the civic purveyor of therapeutic Kumbaya. And so they are not quite willing to have traditional institutions be redefined every time a new group wants to push its juvenile agenda.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

I'm talking about your implicit and explicit attacks against the idea that a healthcare system without significant government involvement JUST MIGHT be more preferable to the current system or a single payer system (which I perceive that you support based on your posts).

I support anything that would work better than our current system, and given the state of things that list is rather long.

What I do not support are half-baked ideas derived more from political sloganeering than reality. If government support were withdrawn from the system tomorrow, the citizenry (including aspiring physicians) would not enjoy the outcome. The hospital were I provide services would shut down within weeks without Medicare dollars, and my own business would fold up shop even sooner. Almost every other non-pediatric inpatient facility in the country would follow suit. Kiss your future career goodbye.

Sound like a good idea?

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Let's stay with it, chief.

I prefer Lord.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

I support anything that would work better than our current system, and given the state of things that list is rather long.

What I do not support are half-baked ideas derived more from political sloganeering than reality. If government support were withdrawn from the system tomorrow, the citizenry (including aspiring physicians) would not enjoy the outcome. The hospital were I provide services would shut down within weeks without Medicare dollars, and my own business would fold up shop even sooner. Almost every other non-pediatric inpatient facility in the country would follow suit. Kiss your future career goodbye.

Sound like a good idea?



I prefer Lord.

Other than perhaps Dave89, who has taken a few too many hits off of the Ron Paul pipe, I don't think anyone here as advocated that Medicare money be withdrawn entirely. It is in fact possible for gradual transitions to occur. Government programs don't operate off of light switches.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

Originally Posted by Dave89

The 11th reason: there are still some people who do not subscribe to the belief that government should be the civic purveyor of therapeutic Kumbaya. And so they are not quite willing to have traditional institutions be redefined every time a new group wants to push its juvenile agenda.

This is one of those occasions where I think the Ron Paul solution is not only the best solution, but is actually a compromise between the two extremes we are debating: simply get the government out of marriage. There is no reason we need a body of law governing monogamous pair bonding. Government has no place being involved with our traditional institutions in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why one of our most sacred and traditional institutions needs to be tied into the tax code and legal system. Marriage is a promise to the person you love, before your family, friends, community, and (if you believe it) God. What does the country clerk of Nevada have to add to that?

In the gay marriage debate both sides are furious that the government wants to tell them and their children that their deepest beliefs are wrong. Both sides are correct.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

I support anything that would work better than our current system, and given the state of things that list is rather long.

What I do not support are half-baked ideas derived more from political sloganeering than reality. If government support were withdrawn from the system tomorrow, the citizenry (including aspiring physicians) would not enjoy the outcome. The hospital were I provide services would shut down within weeks without Medicare dollars, and my own business would fold up shop even sooner. Almost every other non-pediatric inpatient facility in the country would follow suit. Kiss your future career goodbye.

Sound like a good idea?
.

These ideas are not half baked and they're not just theoretical slogans. They're firmly rooted in our own past (that misty time before Medicare was estabilished in 1965) and work incredibly well in the few countries that have been brave enough to operate in a largely cash market (such as singapore). A deregulated cash market for health care does, in fact, work. It would do for healthcare exactly what deregulation did for the airline industry: cut costs to a tenth of what they were without sacrificing safety.

I agree that without the massive government funded clusterf--k that is medicare and medicaid the massive, overfunded, tertiary medical care centers would collapse. I don't agree that would be bad for us, other than a few of the most overpayed subspecialists. The real, working members of the healthcare community did just fine back when the market was largely cash based, do just fine today in Singapore, and will continue to do well if we go back to such a market. The people who will suffer in a permanent way are the legal/administrative leeches that increasingly dominate this system: the nurse managers, the case managers, and the MHAs with the corner offices. These people are unnecessary overhead and would be trimmed in round after round of furious cost cutting. Can you imagine the clipboard nurses all walking out the door, carrying their possessions in little cardboard boxes? Heartbreaking, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

This is one of those occasions where I think the Ron Paul solution is not only the best solution, but is actually a compromise between the two extremes we are debating: simply get the government out of marriage. There is no reason we need a body of law governing monogamous pair bonding. Government has no place being involved with our traditional institutions in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why one of our most sacred and traditional institutions needs to be tied into the tax code and legal system. Marriage is a promise to the person you love, before your family, friends, community, and (if you believe it) God. What does the country clerk of Nevada have to add to that?

In the gay marriage debate both sides are furious that the government wants to tell them and their children that their deepest beliefs are wrong. Both sides are correct.

Agreed. (Again, it's funny that you're supporting a party which essentially pushes for government involvement in everything. I get that you don't want Romney to win, but it's just funny how that turned out.)

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Other than perhaps Dave89, who has taken a few too many hits off of the Ron Paul pipe, I don't think anyone here as advocated that Medicare money be withdrawn entirely. It is in fact possible for gradual transitions to occur. Government programs don't operate off of light switches.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

That's not very accurate. While I have expressed a desire to take as few Medicare/caid patients as possible when practicing, I never said the money should be withdrawn entirely. Entirely being the operative word. There's no doubt that there must be heavy cuts, due to the tremendous financial burden these programs put on our nation.

See, this is the problem, GutShot. You say that without Medicare dollars our system will fall apart. Don't you see the problem there? Entitlement programs are so devastating in that, by their very nature, they creep and grow until they dominate every industry/area they are involved in.

Originally Posted by Dave89

Agreed. (Again, it's funny that you're supporting a party which essentially pushes for government involvement in everything. I get that you don't want Romney to win, but it's just funny how that turned out.)
.

Again, I think that this is a change that needs to happen on the state level. I don't believe that the United States federal government will ever say 'we're going to stop recognizing marriages'. I think Kansas might. Once people see that it works in a couple of states I think they might be willing to try it in less libertarian locations.

Originally Posted by SurfingDoctor

I'm not sure I understand how your example of Bayer Animal Health and Johnson County Community College show you can have great advancements in medical research without government funding. I have never seen either of these entities mentioned in any NEJM or JAMA articles I've read.

1. I have already made the distinction between federal government and other levels of government. I'm not an anarchist. I do think the federal government is important. We need to protect the environment, defend the country, etc. I just think the states and the private sector can do a lot of things a lot better.

2. The federal government gets its money from the people. That's why I always laugh when somebody gets excited about federal funding for this or that. IT WAS OUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

3. The animal health corridor (there are other great examples) is a collaboration between state, county, and local goverments, institutions of higher education, and the private sector. It was organized by those entities and it operates without federal government intervention. Of course, it does benefit from government funding, but like I said, that money was bled from the people in the first place.

P.S. I don't think I've ever met a doctor, or any big earner, as strongly in favor of federal intrusion as you are. Federal government = waste, duplicity, laziness, inefficiency, entitlement.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

These ideas are not half baked and they're not just theoretical slogans.

Yes, they are. "Less government" is a way to turn out various disillusioned voting blocs without offering anything substantive.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

They're firmly rooted in our own past (that misty time before Medicare was estabilished in 1965)

A lot of things transpired before 1965. They weren't all good.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

and work incredibly well in the few countries that have been brave enough to operate in a largely cash market (such as singapore). A deregulated cash market for health care does, in fact, work.

We have been over this. Singapore's "deregulated cash market" in fact relies on a lot of rigid government rules in order to function properly. It's a public-private partnership that gives consumers confidence through stability and predictability. Your description is closer to a black market.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

It would do for healthcare exactly what deregulation did for the airline industry: cut costs to a tenth of what they were without sacrificing safety.

I have no idea what you are getting at here (and "a tenth" is hyperbole).

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

I agree that without the massive government funded clusterf--k that is medicare and medicaid the massive, overfunded, tertiary medical care centers would collapse. I don't agree that would be bad for us, other than a few of the most overpayed subspecialists. The real, working members of the healthcare community did just fine back when the market was largely cash based, do just fine today in Singapore, and will continue to do well if we go back to such a market.

I'm more concerned about patients than practitioners in this scenario. I've got nunchuck skills, so I'm set. Public expenditure on health care is over 50% of total spending, and it's growing as a proportion. Knocking half of the money out of the system would be catastrophic, particularly for seniors. I'm sure over time we would rise from the ashes and carry on, like an awful Kevin Costner film, but in the meantime people would be literally dying in the streets. Not my vision for an ostensibly first world nation.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Other than perhaps Dave89, who has taken a few too many hits off of the Ron Paul pipe, I don't think anyone here as advocated that Medicare money be withdrawn entirely. It is in fact possible for gradual transitions to occur.

Aight. What's going to replace it, then?

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance are all unconstitutional anyway. The federal government has no right to meddle in these venues.

Let's take responsbility for our actions, huh? That would be a nice change. You make a living and you save for retirement, and you plan ahead for healthcare costs. If you make poor decisions, that's on you, and hopefully a charity can assist you. The government doesn't need to go bankrupt just so you can get $500k of end-of-life care that you didn't save up for.

If you don't study in high school, that's on you. If you get a useless major and get a crappy job, that's on you. No nanny/welfare state, please.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

Aight. What's going to replace it, then?

I'm not a policy expert. I don't know. But all you have to do is look around the world to see plenty of alternatives that are more effective than what we currently have. Take your pick.

I will be voting for Obama.
In terms of healthcare, I would rather have everyone receive the same care than have some states provide excellent care and others provide a healthcare plan that provides more to the rich than to the poor. I am only alive today because, despite my parents divorce, my dad was in the military and our government healthcare plan paid for my tonsils to be removed/being brought back to life/helicopter ride to Seattle Children's hospital/month in recovery. If my family didn't have the healthcare plan then either:
A. I would be dead now.
B. My family would been in debt by over $300,000. Not exactly something that a single parent could raise 4 kids with.
I could never vote for Romney because of his stances on women's rights, homosexual policy/statements, stance on taxes for the rich, etc. I fear his beliefs could take the progress that has been made by homosexuals, women and the poor and set it back. Not something I would like to see.
However, I would like Obama to man up.

Med students, physicians, residents, and attendings have opinions that are based in experience and observations. I agree with some of you, I disagree with others. And I respect you sharing your thoughts...

But to those 19 year old "pre-meds" that are just spewing off what they think to be the PC opinions of physicians in that ObamaCare is "this and that" - What in the world do you kids know about how anything works to be so opinionated?

Originally Posted by Dave89

I for one plan to not take any patients who want to use Medicare, Medicaid, or any other healthcare "coverage" programs the government devises.

...hahahahahahahahahha

What do you want to specialize in?

Originally Posted by BABSstudent

I will be voting for Obama.
In terms of healthcare, I would rather have everyone receive the same care than have some states provide excellent care and others provide a healthcare plan that provides more to the rich than to the poor. I am only alive today because, despite my parents divorce, my dad was in the military and our government healthcare plan paid for my tonsils to be removed/being brought back to life/helicopter ride to Seattle Children's hospital/month in recovery. If my family didn't have the healthcare plan then either:
A. I would be dead now.
B. My family would been in debt by over $300,000. Not exactly something that a single parent could raise 4 kids with.
I could never vote for Romney because of his stances on women's rights, homosexual policy/statements, stance on taxes for the rich, etc. I fear his beliefs could take the progress that has been made by homosexuals, women and the poor and set it back. Not something I would like to see.
However, I would like Obama to man up.

I agree with you in that Obama has to man up. I feel that being the first black president has putted a lot of pressure on him to play safe and trying to be bi-partisan. Hopefully, in the second term he will man up to bring the "change" he always talked about when he was running for presidency at the beginning.

Originally Posted by H Y F R

But to those 19 year old "pre-meds" that are just spewing off what they think to be the PC opinions of physicians in that ObamaCare is "this and that" - What in the world do you kids know about how anything works to be so opinionated?

Experience can come from many different perspectives. I, like many other premeds, have been in the situation of the patient. We have learned to sympathize. This does not necessarily constitute an opinion, but may cause a bias.

Also, some premeds have lived in different areas or have unique experiences. I lived last summer in Ecuador and worked in a Subcentro de Salud. In Ecuador, everyone receives free health care (doctor visits and medicine). What was amazing about that was that the doctors and I would go house to house, checking on the families and recording medicines that they needed. We also went to local schools to teach the students and provide general health screenings. Not only was it very proactive, but also preventative because we helped stop harmful actions. Not only did we give out medicine, but also made an effort to remove potential sources of mosquito larvae.

I also worked in Guatemala for ten days, which means I don't have a lot to say except for some general things I witnessed. Where I worked the people receive free doctor screenings but do not receive medication for free. This was necessary but not enough. The people struggled to afford trips to the hospital. Once they went there, the patients couldn't afford the medicine prescribed.

This is why I have my opinions. They may change when I am a doctor, but for now my experiences have caused them. You don't have to be a practicing physician, resident, medical student, etc, to form an opinion based what you have observed. Just be able to back up your belief with experiences/research.

Originally Posted by vayntraubinator

Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Tianar

...hahahahahahahahahha

What do you want to specialize in?

The joke's on you. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows these programs are money pits, and will either destroy the country (thus, themselves), or be reformed drastically.

Originally Posted by Dave89

The joke's on you. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows these programs are money pits, and will either destroy the country (thus, themselves), or be reformed drastically.

aaaand you really think you can practice medicine in this country while avoiding these programs you speak so ill of?

you're a trip my dude

Originally Posted by H Y F R

aaaand you really think you can practice medicine in this country while avoiding these programs you speak so ill of?

you're a trip my dude

Why don't you go back and read my subsequent posts before judging

Originally Posted by Dave89

Why don't you go back and read my subsequent posts before judging

Cuz i'm a bit different than alot of the opinionated pre-meds here and I won't troll someone's entire post history for that one "gatcha moment" that will satisfy my ego.

I bet if this conversation took a couple more turns, you would tell us that the President is really muslim, doesn't have a valid birth certificate, and is a staunch solcialist.

You said it dude, you said you would refuse to help patients that came to you using these programs.... What do you plan to do then? Run a plastic surgery boutique on Rodeo Drive? MazelTov if you can do that

Originally Posted by H Y F R

Cuz i'm a bit different than alot of the opinionated pre-meds here and I won't troll someone's entire post history for that one "gatcha moment" that will satisfy my ego.

You are not the first one with the bare minimum of intelligence sufficient to understand that in the current environment, patients in these programs are unavoidable. I pointed out to those who made this point that I intend to avoid as many of these patients as possible.

Originally Posted by H Y F R

I bet if this conversation took a couple more turns, you would tell us that the President is really muslim, doesn't have a valid birth certificate, and is a staunch solcialist.

Whom do you watch more frequently, Professor Maher or Professor Stewart?

Originally Posted by H Y F R

You said it dude, you said you would refuse to help patients that came to you using these programs.... What do you plan to do then? Run a plastic surgery boutique on Rodeo Drive? MazelTov if you can do that

Perhaps. There are some very innovative ways of avoiding the negatives of patients' use of these crappy insurance programs.

Originally Posted by Dave89

You are not the first one with the bare minimum of intelligence sufficient to understand that in the current environment, patients in these programs are unavoidable. I pointed out to those who made this point that I intend to avoid as many of these patients as possible.

You're living in a fantasy. Good luck with that G

Whom do you watch more frequently, Professor Maher or Professor Stewart?

If this continues, you're gonna tell us "corporations are people my friend." Lay off the Hannity a few days dude.

Perhaps. There are some very innovative ways of avoiding the negatives of patients' use of these crappy insurance programs.

Again, good luck with your goals my dude. You seem all there

Originally Posted by H Y F R

Again, good luck with your goals my dude. You seem all there

Dude.

Like, yo, "corporations" are people, just like the "Army" is officers, soldiers and equipment.

Dude.

Originally Posted by Dave89

Dude.

Like, yo, "corporations" are people, just like the "Army" is officers, soldiers and equipment.

Dude.

Like dude, I took your advice and I trolled some of your post history. You're pretty inflammatory in all your discussions, taking the GOP position in everything.

And just because the tax code treats corporations like people, does not explicitly mean corporations are in fact people. You've taken the Xenu approach, in which Scientologists will say Scientology is a religion because they have tax-exempt status. Come on man, as a med student, as a member of your community, as someone who should be committed to helping people and not clutching to your agenda and idealogies, I know you are better than this.

I'm done posting here. Good luck G

You're right, I apologize. The facts: he will cut 30% of a budget that currently only pays for 55% of our spending in the first place. If you want a strong military you are relying on him either borrowing indefinitely or cutting 73% of the federal budget without touching the military budget.

Originally Posted by tide11189

The health care law is expensive, raises medicare premiums, violates the tenth amendment of the constitution, and the federal mandate portion of the law is unconstitutional. Healthcare should be left up to the states not the federal government; also when has government ever ran anything at a profit or ran it as well as free enterprise?

I'm guessing you are not getting federal loans but private free enterprise loans.

Took out private loans for undergrad and paid them off in a timely manner. Also had a better rate than the government could offer.

Originally Posted by tide11189

Took out private loans for undergrad and paid them off in a timely manner. Also had a better rate than the government could offer. As far as med school goes, I'm on full scholarship (HPSP)

Must have been some pretty small loans to pay them off in a year.

Originally Posted by calvnandhobbs68

Must have been some pretty small loans to pay them off in a year.

And one could consider the HPSP "pound of flesh" scholarship to be the ultimate government loan.

there is no such thing as free enterprise as it exists in textbooks. many of the most profitable companies receive enormous subsidies or low tax rates.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

I'm not a policy expert. I don't know. But all you have to do is look around the world to see plenty of alternatives that are more effective than what we currently have. Take your pick.

The NHS system is pretty well done, and actually decides which pharmaceutical/biomedical products to get for patients on the basis of QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years) vs cost, which is something the American Medicare/caid system doesn't do. They're avoiding useless medications and products that cost a lot while offering only a limited amount of marginal benefit. And they also have a heavy emphasis on generics. That's one of the biggest ways they manage to have 1/2 the per capita cost of healthcare we do, and even then, their patients have excellent health outcomes.

And their salaries aren't too shabby. They're getting a lump sum amount of $220K to retire at 60 and $74K per year as a pension.

Good luck establishing price controls in America though. Perhaps the system has to implode before they're even considered.

Originally Posted by ElCapone

Good luck establishing price controls in America though. Perhaps the system has to implode before they're even considered.

And that my friend is why you won't see reforms like that here for a long time. The social and cultural understanding of the role of government in Europe and much of the rest of the world is fundamentally different than it is here in America. What seems "obvious" and "simple" in other parts of the world is politically impossible here.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

Originally Posted by tide11189

Took out private loans for undergrad and paid them off in a timely manner. Also had a better rate than the government could offer.

Like the ninja edit there bud...you didn't realize the military was part of the government before?

Romney because I love vague bromides about free market magic, especially from a guy whose 'private equity' firm operated more or less like a particularly virulent contagion or cancer, take your pick.

Originally Posted by scarshapedstar

Romney because I love vague bromides about free market magic, especially from a guy whose 'private equity' firm operated more or less like a particularly virulent contagion or cancer, take your pick.

Exactly. And because, as everyone knows, one cannot spell "Republicanz" without "NAZI."

Originally Posted by AnthonyTaylor

Romney is a Mormon, 'nuff said.

As a future Doctor I, not to mention your future profession, expect much more of you. Please explain this comment.

Romney (lesser of two evils in my opinion)

A few questions for everyone posting here?
1) It used to be government stepped in only to prevent bad things (i.e. The law says you can't do that without a consequence). Or to regulate areas where people needed to show competence and good judgement before being allowed to do something. With the Healthcare reform we are looking at a completely new set of circumstances in which the government forces people to do something against their will. Once this door is opened it will never be shut. Are you all fully aware of this and do you actually want it?

2) In the political game when has it ever been that the President had so much time to devote to making laws. It was originally intended that Congress be the only branch to create laws with checks and balances coming from the area branches. Does the Healthcare bill not seem to all of you to be circumventing this organization (much how California courts may soon overrule majority vote. Whether I or you agree with prop 8 the bigger picture here isn't being addressed. The majority of voters may be overruled by a judge!)?

Last one,
3) The founding fathers intended for the government to be a place of service for the people. It has now become a life long job for a new bread of rich and powerful men. This was precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid- people in positions that could enact laws to further their own agendas instead of the voice of the people. Why are we as a people not voting for more non-life-long politicians?

Mmmmm. Those founding fathers must taste REALLY good....

Get off their jocks and enter our current century please.