AMSA-What you should know ...

Getting into Med School is Hard? Not with BeMo.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
JohnHolmes

JohnHolmes

Large Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
3,207
Reaction score
4
http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/

AMSA's top legislative priority is defeating the gay marriage amendment.

Regardless of your feelings on this issue, the fact that AMSA has placed it paramont to all issues concerning medical students makes me wonder about their priorities. :thumbdown:

Also, the organization is partisan-very partisan. While the AMA does not endorse a presidential candidate, AMSA seems to. They have links (not ads, but bonda fide LINKS) on their page to Democratic fundraising causes. They advocate for a single payor system.

http://www.amsa.org/election2004/

AMSA isn't as concerned with the practice of medicine as it is with pushing a partisan ideology... :thumbdown:
Members don't see this ad.
 
Granted, I'm not AMSA's biggest fan, but I can't quickly find the links you're talking about for Democratic fundraising. From the second link, I find a lot of issues with the viewpoints of democratic candidates, Nader and Bush. It seems like it has representation from both parties (and Nader...chuckle) to me.
 
so, why dont more nonpartisan/conservatives join and AMSA and try to reshape the power structure. As it stands there is no way i'd join this organization.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
AMSA is truly a f***ed up organization. I subscribe to their email listservs to get an idea of what it was before I joined, and the utter stupidity, ignorance, and liberalism they showed was astounding. The number of "AIDS trips to Africa" being announced, the number of articles posted about Bush lying, the number of articles posted describing their hatred for Bush... It was astounding.


But now I'm not surprised that their top legislative priority is gay-marriage. Who cares if the lawyers are destroying the health care system! :rolleyes:
 
A quote from the AMA website:
"Medical Liability Reform is AMA's No. 1 Legislative Priority"

A quote from the AMSA website:
"Urge your Senators to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment"

Which quote seems most related to health care to you? I have long known that AMSA is a political organization. To me they are no different than any other political organization (ACLU, NRA.......). For some odd reason, people seem to give AMSA creedence as an organization that represents all medical students, but they dont, they are just another political group.
 
Cerbernator said:
so, why dont more nonpartisan/conservatives join and AMSA and try to reshape the power structure. As it stands there is no way i'd join this organization.
Click to expand...


There are some things that just aren't worth fighting for. I'd rather start my own medical student organization than try to change the power structure of an existing one.
 
You know, all this bitching about AMSA is not very productive. Why doesn't someone work to start a new group that actually represents medical students?
 
Cerbernator said:
You know, all this bitching about AMSA is not very productive. Why doesn't someone work to start a new group that actually represents medical students?
Click to expand...

A great idea, we need a good organization to really represent med students. However, I do think that the "bitching" is somewhat productive. Far to many people believe that AMSA is actually an organization that represents medical students. This could not be further from the truth. So I think people should hear these arguments.
 
BisMuOxo said:
A great idea, we need a good organization to really represent med students. However, I do think that the "bitching" is somewhat productive. Far to many people believe that AMSA is actually an organization that represents medical students. This could not be further from the truth. So I think people should hear these arguments.
Click to expand...

The hard part would be competing with AMSA - I have a feeling they are probably getting some funding from political groups. I think a more student focused interest group (like AMA for students) could be a lot more popular itself though.
 
Tulane has an AMA group for students, and hopefully a lot of other schools do to.

Do a search on your school's website for AMA MSS (med student section)
 
The AMA MSS, (as the above poster mentioned) is the other (and much better) option.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Here is AMSA on Bush's trade policy:

AMSA said:
Protects American interests with steel, sugar, dairy and beef with illegal tariffs.
Click to expand...

Clearly .... no axe to grind.
 
JohnHolmes said:
Here is AMSA on Bush's trade policy:



Clearly .... no axe to grind.
Click to expand...


AMSA strikes me as being full of the worst kind of (future) doctors. Paternalistic asses who think that because they got into med school they're now experts in everything, like what makes a tariff legal.

Of course, their open advocacy for political purposes makes me wonder if they're a 501c3?

At any rate, they're not representative of me. I'm sorry I joined, and won't be renewing.
 
Cerbernator said:
seems like the only reason to join is the free netters
Click to expand...


Hmm. $35 to join, $65 for a netters (less on sale at B&N or Borders).

BTW, you only get the netters if you apply and qualify for an AMSA credit card. I didn't apply, and had already bought the netters.

Ibeenhosed!
 
wow

thanks for starting this thread, JohnHolmes. i guess i was being naive, but i had no idea that AMSA was like that.

now they have officially been added to "the list" :mad:
 
flighterdoc said:
Hmm. $35 to join, $65 for a netters (less on sale at B&N or Borders).

BTW, you only get the netters if you apply and qualify for an AMSA credit card. I didn't apply, and had already bought the netters.

Ibeenhosed!
Click to expand...

well, to hell with em then! (not that I would have joined anyway).
 
While I agree AMSA bites off more for a medical student political group than I?m ready to chew, don?t make the mistake of thinking that the AMA, and by extension the AMA-MSS, is non-partisan.

The AMA consistently gives more money to the Republican party:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=H&Cycle=2004

Everyone?s got their partisanship...healthcare is big money in this country. If you?ve got doubts about the links between industry (any industry) and politics, spend some time on the opensecrets site.
 
Cerbernator said:
so, why dont more nonpartisan/conservatives join and AMSA and try to reshape the power structure. As it stands there is no way i'd join this organization.
Click to expand...


A lot of people would have to join, become local chapter leaders, then replace the national leaders.

I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather be a physician.
 
periodic said:
While I agree AMSA bites off more for a medical student political group than I?m ready to chew, don?t make the mistake of thinking that the AMA, and by extension the AMA-MSS, is non-partisan.

The AMA consistently gives more money to the Republican party:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=H&Cycle=2004

Everyone?s got their partisanship...healthcare is big money in this country. If you?ve got doubts about the links between industry (any industry) and politics, spend some time on the opensecrets site.
Click to expand...

Glad your back, V, hows Boston?

Sure, organized medicine gives more to the GOP, but does not endorse the party. AMSA is a far cry from even the "timid neutrality" it may claim to have.
 
JohnHolmes said:
Glad your back, V, hows Boston?

Sure, organized medicine gives more to the GOP, but does not endorse the party. AMSA is a far cry from even the "timid neutrality" it may claim to have.
Click to expand...

Still got a few weeks before I get there. Congrats on the scholarship..I was glad to hear it went to you!

True, AMSA is definitely not neutral on the issues it?s taken up...the AMA is much more politically-savvy and limited in focus (in a good way). But, I have a hard time separating donations from support. That money goes to candidates and the national committees to get Republicans elected, not some fund for medical malpractice reform, their number one issue.

Anyway, my main problem with the AMA is their lack of vision. Medical malpractice reform is an important issue, but it?s not what costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And, simple caps on damages don?t seem to me like they?ll address the bigger issues of improving patient safety, rebuilding trust, and appropriately dealing with _actual_ medical errors.
 
periodic said:
That money goes to candidates and the national committees to get Republicans elected, not some fund for medical malpractice reform, their number one issue.
Click to expand...

If I were trying to push medical malpractice reform, would I support the party whose VP candidate is a trial lawyer, or the party who wants someone else elected?

Anyway, my main problem with the AMA is their lack of vision. Medical malpractice reform is an important issue, but it?s not what costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And, simple caps on damages don?t seem to me like they?ll address the bigger issues of improving patient safety, rebuilding trust, and appropriately dealing with _actual_ medical errors.
Click to expand...

But malpractice reform is a good starting point that could quickly remove inefficiencies from health care delivery. The other structural changes you propose by their very nature will take longer to implement.
 
good post of AMSA bush vs. kerry.
*sarcasm set to 11*
lots of realy good points.
*sarcasm off*

they should have added:
kerry: wants to fully fund "no child left behind"
bush: supported no child and then wouldn't fund it... just like kerry did on the war effort

fyi, if medical malpractice is a high priority for AMSA, i where are the articles about how edwards made all his money?
 
I see nothing wrong with any organization trying to oppose a ridiculous amendment to the constitution. If this goies through, the next thing you know, they'll be trying to pass an amendment that everyone in this country has to go to some sort of protestant church.
 
It boggles my mind how an organization that claims to represent medical students can support Kerry and Edwards so blindly.

To put things very simply: Bush's solution to the healthcare crisis is tort reform (ie eliminating frivolous lawsuits and capping jury awards at $250g), while Kerry actually picked a medical malpractice attorney as his running mate (and is a lawyer himself).

Bush is interested in "strengthening the doctor-patient relationship" while Kerry would rather herd everyone into Medicaid and HMO's and shift the burden to the taxpayer.

I am in no way a fan of Bush's foreign policy, but to be a doctor and vote for a freakin' trial lawyer, you must be out of your gourd.
 
JohnnieBlue said:
I am in no way a fan of Bush's foreign policy, but to be a doctor and vote for a freakin' trial lawyer, you must be out of your gourd.
Click to expand...

I view Kerry as by far the lesser of 2 evils. Any president that is so vehemently against stem cell research, and pushes his right wing christian conservative agenda, is not a friend of doctors, in spite of what he may believe about tort reform. Should we really be teaching creationism in schools and not doing legal abortions or researching anything that George Bush's personally believes is wrong? Is that the presidential candidate that you think is an obviously better choice?
 
ken37 said:
I view Kerry as by far the lesser of 2 evils. Any president that is so vehemently against stem cell research, and pushes his right wing christian conservative agenda, is not a friend of doctors, in spite of what he may believe about tort reform. Should we really be teaching creationism in schools and not doing legal abortions or researching anything that George Bush's personally believes is wrong? Is that the presidential candidate that you think is an obviously better choice?
Click to expand...

Let's be realistic here:

Is Bush, crazy as he seems sometimes, going to be able to push his crazy anti-abortion views into law? Not a chance in hell. Will there be less funding for stem cell research with Bush in office? Maybe, but the NIH is going to keep getting tons of mulla and the private sector shows no signs of slowing down their research plans.

On the other hand: Will John Kerry fight to keep lawsuits down and keep doctors well paid? The answer is a clear and emphatic NO.
 
ken37 said:
I view Kerry as by far the lesser of 2 evils. Any president that is so vehemently against stem cell research, and pushes his right wing christian conservative agenda, is not a friend of doctors, in spite of what he may believe about tort reform. Should we really be teaching creationism in schools and not doing legal abortions or researching anything that George Bush's personally believes is wrong? Is that the presidential candidate that you think is an obviously better choice?
Click to expand...


Bush is NOT against stem cell research, and in fact the administration has provided a quarter-billion dollars in stem cell research this fiscal year.

Nor has he banned embryonic stem cell research. The only limitation is that federal money can't be used for the embryonic research.

There are two other threads running right now on SCR, you might read them and get your facts straight.
 
Was AMSA not one of the main forces bringing to attention and pushing through the 80 hour work week?

--Vinoy
 
JohnnieBlue said:
Let's be realistic here:

Is Bush, crazy as he seems sometimes, going to be able to push his crazy anti-abortion views into law? Not a chance in hell.


except in the supreme court!
Click to expand...
 
kahoo99 said:
JohnnieBlue said:
Let's be realistic here:

Is Bush, crazy as he seems sometimes, going to be able to push his crazy anti-abortion views into law? Not a chance in hell.


except in the supreme court!
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Bush doesn't sit on the court. And unless someone dies, he won't even be adding anyone to it. But you're right: lets listen to the democrat scare tactics and assume that Bush would do something crazy when we know for a fact that Kerry's politics do not have our (as future physicians) best interests in mind.
Click to expand...
 
flighterdoc said:
Nor has he banned embryonic stem cell research. The only limitation is that federal money can't be used for the embryonic research.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you're going to correct someone, you better damn well get your facts straight. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is available to lines that were in a lab before a certian date (sometime in 1999 I think).

I was pointing it out, along with the fact that if Bush gets to appoint a supreme court justice that is anti abortion (which I'm sure he would at least try to get), the court might overrule Roe v Wade. With the very old age of several justices on the court right now, it's very likely he would get a chance to do this if he gets another term.
 
vinoyp said:
Was AMSA not one of the main forces bringing to attention and pushing through the 80 hour work week?

--Vinoy
Click to expand...

Yeah, they were...

To the OP - you're nuts. Please, all of you, read through the site he directs you to. It's blatantly obvious that AMSA's number one priority is not the federal marriage amendment. The only link to anything that could possibly be construed as a democratic funding site is actually a link to demdocs.org - they're fighting for better and more just healthcare, something democrats tend to be more concerned with than republicans. deal with it.

To those of you that posted stuff like, "gee, I didn't know this about AMSA, I'm going to revoke my membership and hate the organization and everything associated with it from now on" - are you kidding!?!?! Please, think back to how many of the premeds at your school you think are *****s and you can't stand - don't you think they might be on SDN too? Find things out for yourself, don't make your decisions on anythings based on other people's opinions. If you're going to base your opinions on someone else's, don't make it another premed, there are so much better role models and sources of education. Also, in this case, the premeds that wrote some of the stuff they did about AMSA are simply w-r-o-n-g, factually incorrect, and just don't know what they're talking about - read on...

Flame away gentle readers, I'm all about AMSA and proud of my membership in this organization. I love AMSA because I agree with the bulk of their political agenda, the people I've met through it continually inspire me, and I've seen some of the amazing things the group has accomplished. AMSA has never claimed to be apolitical. Personally, I think it's much more dangerous to be a Doctor, an influential and powerful title, and not have strong convictions - why should it be any different for physicians in training?

You're all correct, AMSA does claim to represent it's medical students (key: IT's = MEMBERS, if you don't agree, don't join!) and it does a good job of representing the active members. Key here, active members. Of course all 40,000 medical student members aren't going to agree with every stance AMSA takes on an issue, but rest assured, the majority that participate in the process of establishing these stances (in the House of delegates, run under parlimentary procedure, where any member present can voice their opinion to the floor and ANY member can author a resolution even if that member can't be present at the time of decision) do agree, and the membership is therefore well-represented.

In addition, AMSA's the ONLY completely independant medical student organization. No parent organization giving us money and influencing our policies. 50 years ago, AMSA was called SAMA - the Student American Medical Association. Seven years after being founded they decided that the politics and principles (particularly on socio-medical issues, such as civil rights, universal health care and Vietnam) of the bulk of their membership were so divorced from those of the AMA that they wanted out, and the group broke away. In 1976 they changed their name to AMSA, to make the seperation more clear. Since then, the organization further split into an association (or the AMSA that you all are bitching about) and a foundation. Neither recieves money from any kind of political interests. The Association is funded by member dues and partnership programs, like the MBNA credit card/Netter deal. The Foundation is the 501c(3) part, so that it can apply for grants to do things like develop programs to educate physicians and med students in end of life care, programs in CAM, and allow the association to manage national primary care week.

As for the politics, that's your business, I'm not going to try and change your minds but I will try to educate you:

Med Malpractice
http://www.amsa.org/hp/medmalfacts.cfm
http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/Quotes.pdf
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/rp/rp003103.pdf
Seriously guys, does anyone really think that $250,000 is enough for most of the legit, injury causing, malpractice cases? Tort reform is convenient. It's much too dangerous to go after big insurance companies (who contribute campaign dollars)that are claiming they need to hike rates because of all the huge suits, they don't need to, they're making up for the weak economy that everyone's dealing with.

Universal Health Care
http://www.amsa.org/hp/theories.cfm
http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm
http://www.pnhp.org/
http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/universal.html
It's all here...I don't know how to succinctly talk about it, sorry.


Actually, I'm done. There's more to say, but I'm too tired. I hope you bastards are happy :) - you got me all riled up and I just spent an hour and a half banging this out - it'll make me happy if it doesn't fall on deaf ears, if you want to challenge something I've said here, I'd love to hear it.



With all due respect,
Liz Krebs
AMSA - National Premedical Associate Trustee to Region 8 - 2002, 2003
 
Cheers to krebse. Anyone who thinks ANY organization doesn't have some political agenda is sadly naive. And consider that AMSA does represent at least most of its members adequately, or it likely wouldn't enjoy such longevity of support. Expecting an organization to make each and every member happy all the time is pretty unrealistic. It makes sense for an organization to endorse candidates or legislature that it feels are in the best interests of its members... in the case of a group of medical students, I would think the logical choice is a candidate and legislature that preserves everyone's access to knowledge and their right to use that knowledge to make informed decisions (or, in the case of some previous posters, to make misinformed decisions and statements). Bush has a pretty clear track record of taking informed decision-making away from the experts (i.e. doctors, scientists, diplomats) and I can't think of a good reason to retain him in office other than some sort of personal agenda (anti-choice, greed, ignorance) such as have been aired in this thread. Like Kerry or not, you'll practice medicine YOUR way under his administration. Another doctor will practice medicine THEIR way. Keep a little variety in the field. Under Bush, we will see a propagation of the paternalistic "holier-than-thou" philosophy forcing medicine to conform to a religion-driven ideology that fails to consider the realities of life and circumstance. And that is a fact.
 
Hey AMSA,

Why pick such a divisive issue like gay marriage when it's NOT an obviously medically-related or med student-related issue? From a pragmatic standpoint, you end up (right or wrong) causing your audience to discount your other issues listed on your legislative action page:
- health professions education programs
- universal health care (divisive, perhaps, but obviously medically-related)
- medical student debt
- resident work hours

No one has posted a link to the actual resolution wording or discussion yet. Hey folks, if you call yourself scientists, at least cite some sources on the issue :)
http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/B14AMSA_policy.pdf

Quotes from this source document:
SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION
"PRO: The pro testimony stated that denying this would be equivalent to denying marriage rights to interracial couples; that AMSA should take a stance so that the organization can comment on this issue when asked; that AMSA is here to get involved in political issues; that there are over 1000 benefits extended to married couples; that denial of rights has a negative impact on health and well being; that other medical organizations are debating this issue so AMSA should as well
CON: The con testimony stated that there was a question as to the reason why AMSA needed to take a stand on this issue; that there should be explicit wording emphasizing health related benefits afford by this resolution so as to remain relevant to the medical mission of AMSA; that there were some objections in regional debate"

REFERENCE COMMITTE COMMENTS
"The committee considered the comments regarding specifically emphasizing health benefits included in full marriage rights but felt that addition of this language may change the intent of the resolution..."

So, AMSA, why choose this divisive issue at the obvious risk of losing your audience on other issues? It's a tactical blunder, in my humble opinion.

That said, the AMSA House of Delegates (your representatives, if you're an AMSA member) did approve this resolution, as the link I provided above shows. If you're an AMSA member, follow the issues of your organization. Let your regional rep know (pro or con) if you think AMSA should have gotten involved in this issue, and give them your opinion on other issues.

I suspect there is apathy on the part of AMSA members just as their is apathy on the part of us Americans in even voting in elections, much less contacting our legislators on political issues.

krebse, could you provide a link to AMSA regional leadership for the convenience of AMSA members following this thread? Could you also provide a brief explanation of how general membership can be aware that these resolutions will be voted on? The tone of this thread makes it sound like AMSA leadership decided to embrace the gay marriage issue as a political agenda without any input (or opportunity for input) from general membership.

Kudos to krebse for disclosing her affiliation on what is an anonymous forum. In that vein, here's disclosure of my own. I'm not an AMSA member, and most likely not eligible for membership even if I wanted to join. I'm not a premed, med student, or practicing physician. I'm just a lowly writer :p
 
freelancewriter said:
krebse, could you provide a link to AMSA regional leadership for the convenience of AMSA members following this thread? Could you also provide a brief explanation of how general membership can be aware that these resolutions will be voted on? The tone of this thread makes it sound like AMSA leadership decided to embrace the gay marriage issue as a political agenda without any input (or opportunity for input) from general membership.
Click to expand...

leadership? Of course, gladly: http://www.amsa.org/about/bot.cfm
Here are the names and e-mail addresses of pretty much every national leader in AMSA. The map graphic on this page, http://www.amsa.org/region/regconf.cfm will show you what region you're in.

You can read the official, complete explanation of how general membership can author and be aware of when these resolutions will be voted on in the associations constitution and bylaws, here: http://www.amsa.org/about/ppp/index.cfm . Ok, brief explanation...the House of Delegates (HOD) convenes every year at the national convention, always held in early spring. Voting members of the HOD include the Board of Trustees, or the elected regional leaders and other elected officers, and a delegation of medical students from local chapters around the country. The number of delegates your school gets is dependant on the number of members your chapter has, I believe it's one delegate/50 members. All the HOD does is go through resolutions that have been submit over the past year, and discuss/vote on what AMSA thinks of the proposed resolution to the constitution. This is how and AMSA member can effect AMSA policy and procedure. Somebody thought; this marriage amendmant is wrong, and goes against the general principles of this organization, and they wrote a resolution, which was presented to the HOD, and the decision to officially oppose the federal marriage amendment became part of the constitution. Want to change that? Write a resolution. But please, don't waste everyone's time and embarass yourself, educate yourself on the process (http://www.amsa.org/conv/resolutions.cfm).

Lastly, you're right, the tone of this thread does make it seem like "AMSA leadership decided to embrace the gay marriage issue as a political agenda without any input (or opportunity for input) from general membership." - but keep in mind that there are about 12 different people that made all of these posts, most probably aren't AMSA members, and virtually none of them had any idea how the organization governs itself and engages general membership in the decision process. In general, the pre-allo SDN posters, particularly those of this thread, are so unrepresentative of AMSA general membership that your comment above becomes comical.

Liz
 
krebse said:
but keep in mind that there are about 12 different people that made all of these posts, most probably aren't AMSA members, and virtually none of them had any idea how the organization governs itself and engages general membership in the decision process. In general, the pre-allo SDN posters, particularly those of this thread, are so unrepresentative of AMSA general membership that your comment above becomes comical.
Click to expand...

The pre-allo SDN posters aren't the only ones who questioned AMSA's anti-states rights resolution. Looking at the resolution,

http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/B14AMSA_policy.pdf

5 of 10 Regions plus the International Caucus did not support it or voiced reservations concerning its relevance. I question why such a controversial resolution was jammed through with only 50% full support.

Sorry, but it looks like us lowly pre-meds really are representative of the AMSA general membership.
 
the other Dr. said:
Under Bush, we will see a propagation of the paternalistic "holier-than-thou" philosophy forcing medicine to conform to a religion-driven ideology that fails to consider the realities of life and circumstance.
Click to expand...

What's more paternalistic? Rogue judges in Boston and San Francisco single-handedly redefining a cultural bastion over 3000 years old? Or an amendment that would allow the people of each state to decide for themselves when to accept same-sex unions?

I also take exception to your religion-bashing. There are two medical schools I know of -- Georgetown and Loyola -- that already follow a "religion-driven ideology" -- the Jesuit way. Maybe I'm just a naive pre-med, but I don't think they fail to consider the realities of life and circumstance. They probably do a better job of compassion than Johns "resident sweatshop" Hopkins.
 
flighterdoc said:
AMSA strikes me as being full of the worst kind of (future) doctors. Paternalistic asses who think that because they got into med school they're now experts in everything, like what makes a tariff legal.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds like the bitter diatribe of a jealous, jealous person.

Actually, the steel tariff Bush implemented was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, a decision upheld even after appeal. "Illegal" wasn't an adjective thrown in for flavor. Read for yourself (I know it might be scary to venture away from SDN, but give it a try):

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2003-11-10-steel_x.htm

Bush's ploy to appeal to steel workers in swing states may actually backfire with trade sanctions imposed against us by other countries, which in particular could hurt the Florida produce industry. Hmm, Dubya, political pandering or nepotism? Tough choice this time. I am sure Jeb won't mind if you screw over his constituents in an attempt to garner favor with the swing voters in other states. Another example of Bush's shameless use of politics to further himself at the expense of the middle class worker and our country's international relations.

It might be better if those of you with such dissenting opinions of AMSA's obviously outrageous politics would spend your time forming a new organization more representative of your obviously non-partial ideals, diverting you from being physicians with a political and moral agenda but without the responsibility to inform yourselves before you assail people with your condescending nonsense. I wouldn't want someone like YOU representing ME just because we hold the same degree. Enough people already hate and distrust doctors. We certainly don't need to attack civil rights and medical freedoms to further distance the medical profession from the patients. Leave that nonsense to the politicians, who will at least do their homework before lying to us. Sheesh.
 
Add Creighton to that list- it's another Jesuit institution, IIRC.

Personally, I'm really disturbed that AMSA's taking a stance on this; they really need to focus themselves on issues directly related to mecial students.

There's this lovely concept known as political capital, which means that you only have so much ability to influence people at a given level (President>Senator>Congressman>beaureacrat & Governor>state rep). So how does taking a stance on this issue (which *many* of the delegates in Darko's linked document took issue with) further the mission of AMSA's members? There are more relevant issues for it to deal with. :rolleyes:
 
Bush's ploy to appeal to steel workers in swing states may actually backfire with trade sanctions imposed against us by other countries, which in particular could hurt the Florida produce industry. Another example of Bush's shameless use of politics to further himself at the expense of the middle class worker and our country's international relations.
Click to expand...

The article to which you linked is old. In December 2003, Bush respected the WTO and lifted the steel tariffs. On a happy note, the steel industry is experiencing good times because of all the foreign investment in China.

Protecting the steel industry is a national security matter, not a political ploy -- if we lose our steel-producing capabilities it could be like the Middle-East/Oil dependency problem all over again.
 
Darko said:
What's more paternalistic? Rogue judges in Boston and San Francisco single-handedly redefining a cultural bastion over 3000 years old? Or an amendment that would allow the people of each state to decide for themselves when to accept same-sex unions?

I also take exception to your religion-bashing. There are two medical schools I know of -- Georgetown and Loyola -- that already follow a "religion-driven ideology" -- the Jesuit way. Maybe I'm just a naive pre-med, but I don't think they fail to consider the realities of life and circumstance. They probably do a better job of compassion than Johns "resident sweatshop" Hopkins.
Click to expand...

If you want to associate the "cultural bastion" of marriage with the 3000 years or so of persecution of homosexuals and other minorities, then yes, I think it deserves a little redefining. And I don't view judges extending rights as in anyway comparable to bigots trying to deny them.

I do not engage in religion-bashing. As someone raised in the church and quite knowledgable about Christian doctrine and history, I feel justified in critcizing how modern "religion" often corrupts the values and messages of early Christian teachings to suit its own personal agendas. So a school with a religion-driven ideology that fails to educate future physicians on medically relevant topics because it finds them offensive represents, to me, the same "father knows best" attitude found in the White House and in many doctors who focus more on the disease than the patient.

As a side note, the "Jesuit way" has always been about education and tolerance, especially considering that joining the clergy was (and still is) often one of the only safe options for gay men in less tolerant times when they otherwise would have either been forced to marry against their sexuality or endure suspicion and attacks as to why they hadn't done so. In their situation, you bet I would join a brotherhood dedicated to education and spiritulaity. I would speculate that Jesuits of yore might not harbor such a grudge against gay marriage as many neo-Christian fundamentalists.

Donnie, you're out of your element.
 
the other Dr. said:
Wow, sounds like the bitter diatribe of a jealous, jealous person.

Actually, the steel tariff Bush implemented was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, a decision upheld even after appeal. "Illegal" wasn't an adjective thrown in for flavor. Read for yourself (I know it might be scary to venture away from SDN, but give it a try):

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2003-11-10-steel_x.htm

Bush's ploy to appeal to steel workers in swing states may actually backfire with trade sanctions imposed against us by other countries, which in particular could hurt the Florida produce industry. Hmm, Dubya, political pandering or nepotism? Tough choice this time. I am sure Jeb won't mind if you screw over his constituents in an attempt to garner favor with the swing voters in other states. Another example of Bush's shameless use of politics to further himself at the expense of the middle class worker and our country's international relations.

It might be better if those of you with such dissenting opinions of AMSA's obviously outrageous politics would spend your time forming a new organization more representative of your obviously non-partial ideals, diverting you from being physicians with a political and moral agenda but without the responsibility to inform yourselves before you assail people with your condescending nonsense. I wouldn't want someone like YOU representing ME just because we hold the same degree. Enough people already hate and distrust doctors. We certainly don't need to attack civil rights and medical freedoms to further distance the medical profession from the patients. Leave that nonsense to the politicians, who will at least do their homework before lying to us. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Yes, the tarrif was illegal, and a bad idea to boot.

However, I don't need a group of putative medical students to provide policy positions on anything except medicine and medical school. Thats what they should devote their efforts at, thats what they should be good at. I can handle international relations, economic sanctions and the steel industry (none of which affect, or are affected by, medical school or medicine) myself.
 
Darko said:
The article to which you linked is old. In December 2003, Bush respected the WTO and lifted the steel tariffs. On a happy note, the steel industry is experiencing good times because of all the foreign investment in China.

Protecting the steel industry is a national security matter, not a political ploy -- if we lose our steel-producing capabilities it could be like the Middle-East/Oil dependency problem all over again.
Click to expand...

Older news but relevant to the point that Bush is driven by economic and political factors rather than social issues. I am a glad to hear that the steel industry is profiting through trade with a country that we have lambasted in the recent past for its totalitarian and anti-humanitarian regime.

As for the Middle East/oil dependency problem, as long as it profits Bush to mismanage that and associated industries, we will continue to pay through the nose for it while the environment suffers.
 
the other Dr. said:
Older news but relevant to the point that Bush is driven by economic and political factors rather than social issues. I am a glad to hear that the steel industry is profiting through trade with a country that we have lambasted in the recent past for its totalitarian and anti-humanitarian regime.

As for the Middle East/oil dependency problem, as long as it profits Bush to mismanage that and associated industries, we will continue to pay through the nose for it while the environment suffers.
Click to expand...
And why exactly is this any business of AMSA's? It isn't. Ditto to what flighterdoc said.

And on another note, if AMSA doesn't represent the interests/feelings of its members, but rather of its "leadership," then why should med students support it in the first place???
 
flighterdoc said:
I can handle international relations, economic sanctions and the steel industry (none of which affect, or are affected by, medical school or medicine) myself.
Click to expand...

Clearly. Your comment represents the "medicine is an entity unto itself with no influence from or on the outside world" attitude that neglects the many social, political, and economic factors that you feel may not impact medical students, per se, but do impact the average person you may someday treat. Being uninformed and dismissive of dissenting opinions is nothing to be proud of.
 
EvoDevo said:
And why exactly is this any business of AMSA's? It isn't. Ditto to what flighterdoc said.

And on another note, if AMSA doesn't represent the interests/feelings of its members, but rather of its "leadership," then why should med students support it in the first place???
Click to expand...

It seems to me that AMSA's interest in any of the above issues pertains mainly to its support of a candidate who will, in turn, support the medical profession more profoundly than with tort reform. And obviously, candidates aren't elected on how they will benefit doctors, but on a variety of elements in their political platform, which directly or indirectly will have an impact on your future practive. I credit AMSA for considering aspects of a candidate outside what they have to offer to the pocketbooks of doctors.

Further, in most orgs, those in leadership make decisions based on what is best for and most representative of their members. If you feel AMSA doesn't do this, don't join. Plenty of other med students will, and they will be perfectly happy with their decision.
 
the other Dr. said:
Clearly. Your comment represents the "medicine is an entity unto itself with no influence from or on the outside world" attitude that neglects the many social, political, and economic factors that you feel may not impact medical students, per se, but do impact the average person you may someday treat. Being uninformed and dismissive of dissenting opinions is nothing to be proud of.
Click to expand...


LOL. Pot, kettle, black?

I'd be willing to wager that I'm better informed on politics, finance, government and international affairs than you are. Most likely, I've lived through more of it, too.

How exactly do steel tarrifs affect medical students or medicine? Was there some threat that scalpel blades would become unavailable? And aren't there issues more directly involving medicine that AMSA might devote their attentions to, or are steel tarrifs the biggest threat to medicine in the United States (or the world)?

And, you're the one who's intolerant of dissenting opinions. I offered my opinion of why I think AMSA is out of line, and you choose to question my qualification to have an opinion.

Your comment about China is interesting, as well. Do you think that the US shouldn't be critical of their humanitarian record, or that they are NOT a totalitarian regime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
"What would you like the committee to know about you that wasn't in your application?"
Replies
12
Views
952
SCG3212
SCG3212
dihedralsymmetry
I don't know what I'm doing wrong
Replies
22
Views
3K
RunnerDad
R
A
don’t know what to prioritize as my most meaningful experience out of several great activities
Replies
3
Views
392
cj_cregg
cj_cregg
S
HELP: Do schools know about past acceptances?
Replies
20
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
A
Feel like I have already done everything and don’t know what to do for the upcoming app cycle year!!!
Replies
12
Views
1K
anonimo21
A
Top