liberal vs. conservative

[eliscord]

which med schools are considered politically liberal? conservative?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JuanRafia]

I'd guess that like most academic institutions, most med schools lean to the left. For some reason, to espouse a free-market, competitive, small government, low taxes ideal goes against the goals of most academicians.

Medicine seems headed toward a collectivist (socialist) system, which the schools encourage. Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?

I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC. We are talented people with amazing work ethics, which should be handsomely rewarded and run independently by our own kind. Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.

 

[Avenue Q]

to get back to the point of the thread...

rule of thumb - liberal in traditioanlly liberal regions of the country, and conservative in traditionally conservitive areas. so nyc, basically liberal, oklahoma, basically conservative.

 

[kdwuma]

Maybe i am not reading this right, but why would one need to know the leanings of a school? Is it a need to go somewhere that your views will be validated, Hopefully when we all become doctors we can also pick our patients to validate our views.....if you asked me i will rather go somewhere that had very different views from mine. maybe just maybe.... i will learn something. labels are going to destroy all of us..liberal ..conservative... who cares? humanity that is what matters

 

[cromagnon]

I'd guess that like most academic institutions, most med schools lean to the left. For some reason, to espouse a free-market, competitive, small government, low taxes ideal goes against the goals of most academicians.

Medicine seems headed toward a collectivist (socialist) system, which the schools encourage. Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?

I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC. We are talented people with amazing work ethics, which should be handsomely rewarded and run independently by our own kind. Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.

Word.

 

[typeB-md]

Maybe i am not reading this right, but why would one need to know the leanings of a school? Is it a need to go somewhere that your views will be validated, Hopefully when we all become doctors we can also pick our patients to validate our views.....if you asked me i will rather go somewhere that had very different views from mine. maybe just maybe.... i will learn something. labels are going to destroy all of us..liberal ..conservative... who cares? humanity that is what matters

you are such a kind soul. but you are also a *****ic twit.

where you choose to practice WILL 'pick' your patients. Have a fun time convincing people in southern tennessee that abortion is the way it was meant to be. And have fun convincing gays in SF that what they're doing is morally repugnant.

birds of feather...

so if you may be the anitchrist, master homosexual OR the bible thumping pro-lifer, you may want to choose accordingly.

 

[dmoney41]

Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the match. It is not for the benefit of "social good" (that doesn't even make a lick of sense), it's largely to ensure fairness for the match-ers. Were it not for the match, you'd probably get paid a salary of $0 for, say, a derm residency or anything else that's highly coveted. A bidding war for a residency slot is certainly not something I'd look forward to.

 

[ForbiddenComma]

I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC.

Yeah! Get those socialists off my back! I like it how it is now, a corporate, managed health care system where we as future doctors are treated like Wal-Mart employees, supervised by some MBA in the corporate HQ.

 

[thebiz98]

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the match. It is not for the benefit of "social good" (that doesn't even make a lick of sense), it's largely to ensure fairness for the match-ers. Were it not for the match, you'd probably get paid a salary of $0 for, say, a derm residency or anything else that's highly coveted. A bidding war for a residency slot is certainly not something I'd look forward to.

Amen

 

[Blue Scrub]

what about independent, green, or libertarian associated schools? i'd like to go to one of those schools

 

[The Remix]

I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC...Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.

So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?

 

[Medikit]

They spent a half an hour at my Penn State interview explaining how terrible it is that we don't have universal healthcare and how healthcare is a right. So while the surrounding area might be conservative I would guess that the medical school certainly is not.

 

[thebiz98]

So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?

Come on man. Everyone knows that the 44 million uninsured is a bull**** stat manipulation.

check out this site.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-what_health.htm

1) 44 million includes people uninsured AT ANY TIME during the 12 month period (job changes, graduation...)
2) Lots of those people can afford it but don't buy it
3) Anyone can walk in to a public hospital to get catastrophic care - covered by the gov. Cook County Hospital - the only one I have experience with - will dispense most drugs for free.

 

[g3pro]

So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?

If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.

 

[Blue Scrub]

If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.

Here we go!!!! Right on g3pro, socialized medicine has its own serious problems, its not all rosy for them as well.....the system we have here in the US is in my opinion the best we can come up with at the moment, and it def fits with the American way of living, I dont think socialized medicine will ever work here in the US....maybe a balance of the our current system with elements of other systems?? I have no idea, and apparently no one else does in our country

 

[tigress]

If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.

Just because somebody supports socialized medicine doesn't mean they haven't considered the ramifications. It is self-righteous of you to believe that you are the only one who thinks about things. There are intelligent arguments on both sides. I personally support socialized healthcare and I have put a lot of thought and reading into it. So have many other doctors. http://www.pnhp.org/

In any case that wasn't the point of this thread. Arguing about it is just going to lead to name calling and lots of rudeness. An intelligent discussion may be warranted, but they usually degrade into nasty fights around here.

 

[tigress]

Here we go!!!! Right on g3pro, socialized medicine has its own serious problems, its not all rosy for them as well.....the system we have here in the US is in my opinion the best we can come up with at the moment, and it def fits with the American way of living, I dont think socialized medicine will ever work here in the US....maybe a balance of the our current system with elements of other systems?? I have no idea, and apparently no one else does in our country

This is a good response. It is possible that a change in system would work here. Certainly something ought to be done to change the existing mess. I'm not sure if socialized medicine would work in the US or not. I would like to believe that it could. But I disagree that the current system is "the best we can come up with at the moment." We can and must do better.

 

[Blue Scrub]

Just because somebody supports socialized medicine doesn't mean they haven't considered the ramifications. It is self-righteous of you to believe that you are the only one who thinks about things. There are intelligent arguments on both sides. I personally support socialized healthcare and I have put a lot of thought and reading into it. So have many other doctors. http://www.pnhp.org/

In any case that wasn't the point of this thread. Arguing about it is just going to lead to name calling and lots of rudeness. An intelligent discussion may be warranted, but they usually degrade into nasty fights around here.

Yeah it totally will, its the SDN curse....what can you do The schiavo thread was a prime example......and you're right this isnt the thread to talk about socializing medicine, i apologize for my post... there are plenty of threads for this topic.....although it seems that's where this thread is headed, and there may be no stopping it now....

 

[Blue Scrub]

This is a good response. It is possible that a change in system would work here. Certainly something ought to be done to change the existing mess. I'm not sure if socialized medicine would work in the US or not. I would like to believe that it could. But I disagree that the current system is "the best we can come up with at the moment." We can and must do better.

I guess its not like we came up with this "current system", it just kinda snowballed and happened....I agree with you, we MUST find some kind of solution to the problems in our system....easier said than done though hopefully in our lifetimes, the system will be considerably better...or even better, I hope the system becomes better while we are practicing, but I guess we'll have to see when the time comes

 

[The Remix]

Come on man. Everyone knows that the 44 million uninsured is a bull**** stat manipulation.

check out this site.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-what_health.htm

1) 44 million includes people uninsured AT ANY TIME during the 12 month period (job changes, graduation...)
2) Lots of those people can afford it but don't buy it
3) Anyone can walk in to a public hospital to get catastrophic care - covered by the gov. Cook County Hospital - the only one I have experience with - will dispense most drugs for free.

Good job giving me an article from a think tank that supports authors who argue that embracing a black identity entails falling into "pitfalls of victimology and separation." Anyway it's nice to know that since my father doesn't have health insurance he can have his prostate tumor removed for free if he can somehow notice it growing up there.

 

[bobhagopian]

First I'll answer the OP: the schools range from UCSF (left) to schools in parts of the South (right). More so than undergraduate schools, medical school ideology seems to be correlated with the political leanings of the corresponding region.

I'd guess that like most academic institutions, most med schools lean to the left. For some reason, to espouse a free-market, competitive, small government, low taxes ideal goes against the goals of most academicians.

I know this may not fit in with your world view, but when people say that universities lean left, they are usually referring to social issues. But since you raise a much larger point, let's pause to think. Free-markets are good but imperfect servants of society. Competition is always good, but there are lots of conditions in which competition doesn't emerge (e.g., those industries with a high cost of entry, like health care), and some in which it simply cannot exist (like your power company; it's not practical to have power lines from five different companies running to your house, so you and your neighbors choose one and pay whatever they want, which is way too much in places like CA). Also, I would like to dispel the notion that liberals hate their money and want to give away more of it in taxes. It is an effective caricature of the left, though.

If you really want to get into an honest debate, you must first admit that a society can be successful in a highly-regulated, high-tax environment (e.g., Norway), just as it can be successful in a deregulated, low-tax environment. Each has its pros and cons, but it's not as ridiculous a choice as the right seems to want it to be. I, for one, prefer something in the middle -- a tax rate low enough to serve as an incentive for being a good employee, but high enough to allow us to acheive some national goals that wouldn't be possible without money (e.g., defense, space program, etc.) I want something deregulated enough to foster competition, but regulated enough to ensure transparency and stymie corruption and collusion.

Medicine seems headed toward a collectivist (socialist) system, which the schools encourage. Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?

The police and the fire department are "collectivist (socialist)" as well, then. I know that you guys use the word "socialist" because it stirs a lot of emotion, but there are some industries in which it makes sense. Is health care one of them? I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that you need to stop making it sound like the most ridiculous idea ever proposed.

Oh, and please don't forget that the National Residency Match Program was the result of complaints by medical students. I personally wish I could be admitted to several programs and then get a choice, but I am still rational enough to understand that there are real benefits to having an organized match program. I direct you to savethematch.org for a better summary than I can provide. What I can tell you is that it has nothing to do with schools pushing a collectivist agenda. You may be interested to know that resident salaries, for instance, are primarily determined by the amount of funding that Congress provides. But, you're right, Congress is dominated by leftist, socialist liberals as well.

I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC. We are talented people with amazing work ethics, which should be handsomely rewarded and run independently by our own kind. Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.

Neither do I. But I also don't want a young kid who has done nothing wrong in the world to die because he didn't get his vaccinations.

It may surprise you to know that I am sympathetic to your libertarian views, at least at an academic level. I respect them because they are pure and consistent. But isn't it funny how reality and morality can complicate libertarian ideals? I'd really like to discuss with someone how we as a society can create an optimal environment for health care and all these other issues you bring up, but that can't happen until that person is willing to open his/her eyes to the wide array of rational solutions that exist to these problems.

 

[The Remix]

If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.

I certainly know what the ramification are. I work with the Universal Healthcare Action Network. I also know that as a future physician, my patients needs go before mine. Nobody should have to worry about obtaining quality access to healthcare, no matter what their financial situation or social status. I'm uninsured now because I decided to use my money to apply to medical school. Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.

 

[Obedeli]

I will start off by saying I am a conservative. HOWEVER, this type of thread does nothing but aggravate everyone! Nobody is going to prove one side better than the other and nobody's mind will be changed. I think that this thread is pretty pointless since liberal or conservative school makes no different. I think I attend the loon star college of medicine from the planet Lenin. But it makes no difference in my education (other than a communistic style humanities course)! I dunno... this whole type of thread brings out the worst in people and for that reason, I would avoid it.
Do well on the MCAT, go and apply to a medical school with good match stats if you can, and don't worry about.

Honestly, match stats are FAR more relevant than political ideaology.

 

[superdavykinz]

Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.

Yet I guess it wouldn't matter if we had healthcare or not if we got nuked. What's this about cow farts?

 

[tigress]

If you really want to get into an honest debate, you must first admit that a society can be successful in a highly-regulated, high-tax environment (e.g., Norway), just as it can be successful in a deregulated, low-tax environment.

Hey, I agree with everything you said. I actually support higher taxes and more of a Scandinavian system. But this is an interesting read http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?

 

[The Remix]

Yet I guess it wouldn't matter if we had healthcare or not if we got nuked. What's this about cow farts?

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=23340

 

[Llenroc]

I interviewed at Emory and they were liberal as ****. This was a school in Atlanta, GA, in the heart of the Bible belt, of the ultra-deep South. One of the most conservattive and Republican regions in the country, with Baptist churches the size of football stadiums and a mountain with confederate heroes carved on it... But I digress. They brought out a number of students who bragged about how liberal they were back in college. And the Dean of Admissions claimed that it was a "heinous crime against humanity" that some people in this country didn't have health insurance. One of the doctors who came to speak to us complained about "Republican bastards".

Other than Loma Linda and perhaps a few other schools, I'm really not sure if there are any conservative medical colleges.

Here's how it is in academic medicine: academic doctors make 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of money of practicing physicians. They are bitter about this. They think they are the smartest and deserve the most money. Naturally, they favor socializing the healthcare system. "It's no skin off their ass", as they say. Also, many of them are dependent on the government for research money or money to keep money-losing teaching hospitals running, so naturally they favor higher taxes and more government spending. That colors the whole system highly liberal, and probably discriminates against conservatives.

 

[g3pro]

I certainly know what the ramification are. I work with the Universal Healthcare Action Network. I also know that as a future physician, my patients needs go before mine. Nobody should have to worry about obtaining quality access to healthcare, no matter what their financial situation or social status. I'm uninsured now because I decided to use my money to apply to medical school. Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.

If you truly understand the needs of your patients, you would understand why universal health care would go against them. Nobody worrying about obtaining quality health care? What are you going to do about the floods of people wanting to see a physician or specialist for the slightest of problems? The US is far too large to apply a socialized medical system. Even Canada is too big to support its system! So you really want to f*** over everyone in the system with massive waiting lists, just so you can have a feel-good feeling that you think you're doing good for everyone?

 

[superdevil]

you know, if the OP would have just entitled the thread "liberal vs. conservative" and not posted anything, this would still turn into a 3 page diatribe on the viability of socialized medicine. this was destined to become forum pollution of the highest magnitude the moment the OP created this thread. thanks a lot.

get off your soapboxes.

 

[superdevil]

Here's how it is in academic medicine: academic doctors make 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of money of practicing physicians. They are bitter about this. They think they are the smartest and deserve the most money. Naturally, they favor socializing the healthcare system. "It's no skin off their ass", as they say. Also, many of them are dependent on the government for research money or money to keep money-losing teaching hospitals running, so naturally they favor higher taxes and more government spending. That colors the whole system highly liberal, and probably discriminates against conservatives.

i don't think the system necessarily "discriminates against conservatives", but everything else you said was remarkably astute for such a silly thread.

 

[DrBowtie]

Well my only statement regarding this issue is that most ideology sounds peachy but it never works out in practice. There will always be people who beat or manipulate the system.

 

[NEATOMD]

So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?

Wow, so you'd rather have the same *****s that are currently botching up our social security funds botching up health care...sounds like a good idea to me too. Plus, who really needs to get an MRI done quickly anyway. We don't really need those to be in EVERY hospital. And, I'd say its reasonable to have to travel 4 hours to get an emergency CAT scan. All this so the gov't can save money and still charge you a 15-20% tax. Plus, I've found that socialist systems work wonders for peoples' drive to excel in their fields. I mean, if I get paid the same to do my best work as lazy work, I'd sure as heck be likely to do my personal best, especially since my patients have no choice but to see me because I am their gov't assigned health care provider. Plus, you know, I'd just about let anyone do surgery on me, so I'll go ahead and let the government pick a doc for me. Plus, I mean why even perform most diagnostic tests, I mean, I'd get paid the same either way, so why do extra work? Yet another great idea I just had: We can be like England and stop covering people at age 65 cause, well, old people are a useless burden to society anyway. Yeah, it makes alot of sense to go towards a socialist health care system and I can't wait. And no, I'm NOT bitter...

 

[rjgennarelli]

I just have a couple quick questions for those of you (if any) who favor lower progressive taxation, tax cuts geared toward the wealthy, less gov't funds going toward welfare and social security, and less government regulation: how do you propose that this country controls its widening income gap? How does this country, with a president imposing arguably some of the most conservative policies of the age, stop, or even slow down, the massive amounts of wealth from being engulfed by the richest 1 % of Americans?



Democrat. Republican. They are nothing more than two socially created concepts, which people like to use when referring to the stereotypical "liberal," or the stereotypical "conservative." Virtually nobody can precisely fit either one of these paradigms. It is true, however, that people's views can "lean" either way in a relative sense, and when they do, they tend to be automatically labeled as a "conservative," or a "liberal." This "labeling" makes things much easier for us to understand one another, but nothing is that simple. We have all been told not to look at things in "black or white," in a sort of "either-or" basis, but that is just what we do. We are so quick to draw conclusions and match people to these abstract models which we have in our heads that we never stop and think about what we are doing.

Nothing naturally occurring precisely fits our abstract models, and this is the same with the political party system. Most people do not perfectly fit the ideals of either party, but we declare ourselves part of one regardless. This suggests that the solutions to our societal problems should not comply with the ideals of one party or the other, but rather, they should be inclusive of them both. If this is not the solution, then this country is destined to become more divided than it already is, and our problems will never be solved.

 

[MoosePilot]

I just have a couple quick questions for those of you (if any) who favor lower progressive taxation, tax cuts geared toward the wealthy, less gov't funds going toward welfare and social security, and less government regulation: how do you propose that this country controls its widening income gap? How does this country, with a president imposing arguably some of the most conservative policies of the age, stop, or even slow down, the massive amounts of wealth from being engulfed by the richest 1 % of Americans?



Democrat. Republican. They are nothing more than two socially created concepts, which people like to use when referring to the stereotypical "liberal," or the stereotypical "conservative." Virtually nobody can precisely fit either one of these paradigms. It is true, however, that people's views can "lean" either way in a relative sense, and when they do, they tend to be automatically labeled as a "conservative," or a "liberal." This "labeling" makes things much easier for us to understand one another, but nothing is that simple. We have all been told not to look at things in "black or white," in a sort of "either-or" basis, but that is just what we do. We are so quick to draw conclusions and match people to these abstract models which we have in our heads that we never stop and think about what we are doing.

Nothing naturally occurring precisely fits our abstract models, and this is the same with the political party system. Most people do not perfectly fit the ideals of either party, but we declare ourselves part of one regardless. This suggests that the solutions to our societal problems should not comply with the ideals of one party or the other, but rather, they should be inclusive of them both. If this is not the solution, then this country is destined to become more divided than it already is, and our problems will never be solved.

Why should government stop that?

Is the problem really a set amount of wealth? The government is really just an organization of the people. How do the people want to govern themselves? So government intervening might just be a more organized way of the less wealthy masses uprising and taking the money. What if it isn't just an unequal distribution of a set amount of wealth? What if the rich have more wealth because they actually created something that didn't exist before? So if they weren't around, you couldn't split their money amongst a larger group of others, but you just lose it like you lose their contribution to society?

My image of what would happen if the poorest 50% just took the money from the richest 5%. I don't think it would lead to balance, I think it would just lead to society being poorer in the long run.

 

[thebiz98]

Nothing naturally occurring precisely fits our abstract models, and this is the same with the political party system. Most people do not perfectly fit the ideals of either party, but we declare ourselves part of one regardless. This suggests that the solutions to our societal problems should not comply with the ideals of one party or the other, but rather, they should be inclusive of them both. If this is not the solution, then this country is destined to become more divided than it already is, and our problems will never be solved.QUOTE]

This is an insane ramble. I hope everyone sees that. It's an uninteresting observation that people have individualized desires rather than party-line preferences. DUH. How chaotic would our politics be otherwise? Instead, we decide which tent we fall under and support other policies in return for others' support of ours.

As for whether we can categorize ourselves as Liberal or Conservative - they aren't 'social constructions'. Why or why would hundreds of millions of Americans use those 'labels'? Have you discovered 'the truth'? Actually, those 'paradigms' represent consistent and unique world views from which we derive at least two distinct ways to approach policy and social dillemas. Do you want me to list examples?

Finally, your assertion that wealth is being gobbled up by some top 1% is total crazy-talk. Where the hell did you get that from? Back up jabber about wealth-gaps with...facts and analysis.

Studies Tracking people once in the Top 20% and Bottom 20% found incredible instability. That is, as time progresses it becomes more likely for someone to drop from the top 20 than to stay in the bottom 20.

Also, what does it mean to "REdistribute" income? What does it mean that wealth has been 'controlled' by some group? WHO distributed the income in the first place? What crazy person created such an 'unjust' program? Or is Income is earned...distributed by...the market?

People are right, this thread got derailed. I'm sorry for adding to that, but this had to be said.

 

[The Remix]

Wow, so you'd rather have the same *****s that are currently botching up our social security funds botching up health care...sounds like a good idea to me too. Plus, who really needs to get an MRI done quickly anyway. We don't really need those to be in EVERY hospital. And, I'd say its reasonable to have to travel 4 hours to get an emergency CAT scan. All this so the gov't can save money and still charge you a 15-20% tax. Plus, I've found that socialist systems work wonders for peoples' drive to excel in their fields. I mean, if I get paid the same to do my best work as lazy work, I'd sure as heck be likely to do my personal best, especially since my patients have no choice but to see me because I am their gov't assigned health care provider. Plus, you know, I'd just about let anyone do surgery on me, so I'll go ahead and let the government pick a doc for me. Plus, I mean why even perform most diagnostic tests, I mean, I'd get paid the same either way, so why do extra work? Yet another great idea I just had: We can be like England and stop covering people at age 65 cause, well, old people are a useless burden to society anyway. Yeah, it makes alot of sense to go towards a socialist health care system and I can't wait. And no, I'm NOT bitter...

Stay on your rocker. Nobody is trying to install a "Marx Medicine" system. Universal Healthcare means just that. Everyone is covered. If you don't think the poorest in our society deserve, at the least, quality health care regardless of ability to pay than I'm not sure where our American value system went wrong. Or maybe you think all of the underclass are lazy bums that deserve their situation?

 

[thebiz98]

but the poorest ARE covered in our system, right now. (Medicaid is pretty good)

 

[Obedeli]

I tried. I did my best to prevent another socialized medicine forum out of an inane question that tangentially approached the subject.

Oh well, nobody's mind will be changed, and some people will be up all night thinking of great comebacks.

What matters (with regards to the original question) if you are fortunate to have a decision between schools is not political ideology, its MATCH LISTS!

 

[USCTex]

How do you propose that this country controls its widening income gap? How does this country, with a president imposing arguably some of the most conservative policies of the age, stop, or even slow down, the massive amounts of wealth from being engulfed by the richest 1 % of Americans?

This is a not a valid question because as the previous poster pointed out it assumes that we NEED to "control" the income gap. Its neither necessary from a philosophical argument nor a pragmatic one.

"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

The right to property is inherent, on par with health and life and safety. You cannot violate my right to property, by taking my taxes and spending them on another, in order to maintain someone else's right to life and health...if both rights are just as valid.

Stay on your rocker. Nobody is trying to install a "Marx Medicine" system. Universal Healthcare means just that. Everyone is covered. If you don't think the poorest in our society deserve, at the least, quality health care regardless of ability to pay than I'm not sure where our American value system went wrong. Or maybe you think all of the underclass are lazy bums that deserve their situation?

Any study of our history shows our American value system is based not on equaltarianism but on the right to individual liberty. Don't confuse it with the history of those european crackpots.

 

[The Remix]

but the poorest ARE covered in our system, right now. (Medicaid is pretty good)

Yeah, until it dropped me once I turned 19.

 

[USCTex]

Okay, I was pretty rude and no one ever convinces anyone to change their minds in these threads so I have a joke to tell...

A guy and a giraffe walk into a bar. The bartender thinks this is wierd but he serves them. Well, the giraffe can't hold his alcohol and gets drunker and drunker.

Finally, the giraffe passes out on the floor and the guy gets up to leave. As he's about to exit the bartender gets upset and pointing to the giraffe, shouts, "You can't leave that lyin' around here!"

The guy stops in the door, "That's not a lion, that's a giraffe!"

 

[El Duderino]

but the poorest ARE covered in our system, right now. (Medicaid is pretty good)

True, Medicaid is very good. It does come with a few strings, however:'

- if you get a job, you pretty much lose it because your income makes you ineligible(regardless of whether your new job comes with health insurance or not). I don't know if you can have a full-time job in any state and not lose your Medicaid eligibility, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
- because reimbursements are low, many doctors won't take it (not as much of a problem any more AFAIK, but still)
- you have to apply for it. Since states bear a part of the cost of Medicaid, many states are reluctant to educate people about Medicaid, in effect preventing them from getting coverage despite the fact that they may be eligible
- in most (many at least) states you have to be poor (and I mean wretchedly poor) to be eligible. Alabama is the classic example, where you lose Medicaid if you make more than $3000 a year or so. (I mean seriously... Why even have a cutoff level if it's that low?)

But you are right in saying that the (very) poor aren't really the problem, they constitute a surprisingly small proportion of the 44 MILLION uninsured (growing at an alarming rate). The problem is the "working poor".

 

[The Remix]

Okay, I was pretty rude and no one ever convinces anyone to change their minds in these threads so I have a joke to tell...

A guy and a giraffe walk into a bar. The bartender thinks this is wierd but he serves them. Well, the giraffe can't hold his alcohol and gets drunker and drunker.

Finally, the giraffe passes out on the floor and the guy gets up to leave. As he's about to exit the bartender gets upset and pointing to the giraffe, shouts, "You can't leave that lyin' around here!"

The guy stops in the door, "That's not a lion, that's a giraffe!"

5 presidents are on a plane

Five presidents are on a plane: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. George Washington says, "I will make someone happy!" and throws a dollar bill off the plane.
Then Abraham Lincoln says, "I will make five people happy!" and throws 5 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Thomas Jefferson says, "I will make 500 people happy!" and throws 500 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.

 

[thebiz98]

5 presidents are on a plane

Five presidents are on a plane: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. George Washington says, "I will make someone happy!" and throws a dollar bill off the plane.
Then Abraham Lincoln says, "I will make five people happy!" and throws 5 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Thomas Jefferson says, "I will make 500 people happy!" and throws 500 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.

Dude!

 

[MoosePilot]

5 presidents are on a plane

Five presidents are on a plane: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. George Washington says, "I will make someone happy!" and throws a dollar bill off the plane.
Then Abraham Lincoln says, "I will make five people happy!" and throws 5 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Thomas Jefferson says, "I will make 500 people happy!" and throws 500 one dollar bills off the plane.

Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.

This joke might make a good litmus test

Which punchline is funnier?

Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.

or

Then George W. Bush says, "I will make the whole country happy!" and throws Bill Clinton off the plane.

 

[rjgennarelli]

This is a not a valid question because as the previous poster pointed out it assumes that we NEED to "control" the income gap. Its neither necessary from a philosophical argument nor a pragmatic one.

"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

The right to property is inherent, on par with health and life and safety. You cannot violate my right to property, by taking my taxes and spending them on another, in order to maintain someone else's right to life and health...if both rights are just as valid.



Any study of our history shows our American value system is based not on equaltarianism but on the right to individual liberty. Don't confuse it with the history of those european crackpots.

Okay USC, you're entirely right. The country we live in is a complete meritocracy.

 

[USCTex]

Okay USC, you're entirely right. The country we live in is a complete meritocracy.

First of all, saying we're a meritocracy is in no way inconsistent with my belief that this country is completely founded on the idea of individual liberty not equality.

Second, if that was true Las Vegas wouldn't be nearly as big as it is (we wouldn't reward laziness and luck)...plus I don't think anyone here (not even myself) would say that George Bush is the smartest or most talented person in the country...since he serves at the pinnacle of power, it's hard to call us a meritocracy.

We're only a meritocracy in the sense that EVERY country where free markets generally rule is a meritocracy. Which, despite some of Europe's socialist tendecies, is still most of the western world.

 

[rjgennarelli]

First of all, saying we're a meritocracy is in no way inconsistent with my belief that this country is completely founded on the idea of individual liberty not equality.

Second, if that was true Las Vegas wouldn't be nearly as big as it is (we wouldn't reward laziness and luck)...plus I don't think anyone here (not even myself) would say that George Bush is the smartest or most talented person in the country...since he serves at the pinnacle of power, it's hard to call us a meritocracy.

We're only a meritocracy in the sense that EVERY country where free markets generally rule is a meritocracy. Which, despite some of Europe's socialist tendecies, is still most of the western world.

1. I was being sarcastic.

2. What about those who are sociologically disadvantaged ie victims of racial disparity, etc.

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, theoretically we are a meritocracy, but in reality we are not.

 

[USCTex]

1. I was being sarcastic.

2. What about those who are sociologically disadvantaged ie victims of racial disparity, etc.

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, theoretically we are a meritocracy, but in reality we are not.

I feel like a jackass

I don't even know why I was arguing...you'd think I would try to argue that we are a meritocracy. I'm tired. I'm going to drink. I'll leave my original post up to embarass myself.

 

[indo]

This joke might make a good litmus test

Which punchline is funnier?

Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.

or

Then George W. Bush says, "I will make the whole country happy!" and throws Bill Clinton off the plane.

Bush would never throw Clinton off of the plane because Clinton can get him coke, booze, and bitches. Bush would take the coke, booze, and bitches then have Karl Rove create "Airline Pilots for the Moral High Ground" and have that group throw Clinton off of the plane so he could still look at god with a straight face when he was at the pearly gates.