AMSA is way out of touch with American Medical students

[78222]

And i want to know how it happened and why the majority of students that join are not represented at all by AMSA. Most students join for the free Netters and then never give it another thought. While AMSA, which claims to represent us, goes around supporting causes that may not be in the best interests of physicians or have anything to do with medicine at all.

Case in point, last year AMSA jumped into "GLTB issues" and made that a huge focus of theirs (a friend tells me a AMSA conference she went to was almost entirely about GLBT issues). Now don't get me wrong, I completely support gay rights and the right of Homosexuals to get married. Nonethless, this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDICINE.

What are your thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MacGyver]

yeah its BS.

Unfortunately it will continue until mainstream med students start jumping in.

As it stands right now, we have stood aside while the crazy liberals have taken over

 

[deleted109597]

This isn't new. They are moving farther and farther to the left, because they feel that those points aren't being addressed by the far more conservative AMA. So those students preferentially choose leadership in AMSA, and it keeps feeding off itself as the moderates stop going to meetings.

 

[EC3]

This isn't new. They are moving farther and farther to the left, because they feel that those points aren't being addressed by the far more conservative AMA. So those students preferentially choose leadership in AMSA, and it keeps feeding off itself as the moderates stop going to meetings.

true.

You ever see the type of people that are attracted to student leadership roles? ::shudders::

 

[78222]

true.

You ever see the type of people that are attracted to student leadership roles? ::shudders::

I agree. ::shudders:

 

[Darko]

While I also disagree with AMSA's politics, I think it's smart for them to be left-of-center. As a mainstream group it's at a competitive disadvantage vs AMA student section, with its contacts with the AMA, and tie-ins with state and local medical societies. However there is a sizable number of medical students, residents, and physicians turned off by the "fascist" AMA. By tilting leftwards AMSA can appeal to these people who would be normally turned off by a centrist organization. Yes, there is competition from PSR at this end of the spectrum but AMSA has a more well-known brand name at this point in history.

 

[Acherona]

AMSA has a platform. If you don't like it, don't join. Nobody is forcing you to get the free Netter (which is btw provided by a credit card company, not AMSA). This is like joining the NRA and then complaining that they promote guns.

Also I haven't found that AMSA supports medically unrelated causes. GLBT is not irrelevant as long as there are GLBT med students or doctors who are insensitive to GLBT patients.

 

[78222]

AMSA has a platform. If you don't like it, don't join. Nobody is forcing you to get the free Netter (which is btw provided by a credit card company, not AMSA). This is like joining the NRA and then complaining that they promote guns.

Also I haven't found that AMSA supports medically unrelated causes. GLBT is not irrelevant as long as there are GLBT med students or doctors who are insensitive to GLBT patients.

Oh what a load of BS. The problem with AMSA is that they are the "American Medical Student Association", not the "Leftist Gay Dolphin You Can't Hug Your Children With Nuclear Arms Medical Student Association". They are claiming to represent medical students, which I would think most medical students (if they paid attention) would realize they are not doing.

AND NO, GAY MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A MEDICINE. Further, neither do GBLT issues - at least not so much as they warrant the hijacking of an entire AMSA conference. Should doctors treat GLBT patients equally? OF COURSE! But we are required to treat ALL people equally.

 

[Labslave]

AND NO, GAY MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A MEDICINE.

I don't even have a constructive comment. Just thought this was entertaining.

 

[78222]

I don't even have a constructive comment. Just thought this was entertaining.

oops 😳

 

[rpkall]

Most mainstream med students join AMA and get a free Merck Manual or whatever the heck they give out.

AMSA's platform is progressive; they seem to be more about politics than medicine. I agree with most of their positions, but I just couldn't see myself joining.

 

[Law2Doc]

Most mainstream med students join AMA and get a free Merck Manual or whatever the heck they give out.

AMSA's platform is progressive; they seem to be more about politics than medicine. I agree with most of their positions, but I just couldn't see myself joining.

To be fair, both of those organizations offer both a free book AND a magazine subscription. 😀
Seems to me that if you are an AMSA member and don't like what they stand for, then you can use their own democratic process against them to fix it. Find enough like-minded folks, and elect a new slate of officers next election.

 

[78222]

To be fair, both of those organizations offer both a free book AND a magazine subscription. 😀
Seems to me that if you are an AMSA member and don't like what they stand for, then you can use their own democratic process against them to fix it. Find enough like-minded folks, and elect a new slate of officers next election.

That would probably be like joining the democractic party and attempting to change their platform.

 

[Law2Doc]

That would probably be like joining the democractic party and attempting to change their platform.

Your premise in your opening post was that the majority of members are not being represented by the organization. If that is the fact, then the power is there to change it. Unlike a political party, money is not an issue here, mere effort is.

 

[78222]

Your premise in your opening post was that the majority of members are not being represented by the organization. If that is the fact, then the power is there to change it. Unlike a political party, money is not an issue here, mere effort is.

My premise is that organizations tend to form an internal culture which can be very difficult to change, especially if nothing appears to be wrong (i.e. people are still joining for that free Netters). How easy would it be to get anything done if you were a flaming liberal in the GOP? I have a feeling that the only way to get AMSA to focus is to redude their membership - something I doubt will happen so long as they give out "free" netters.

 

[Law2Doc]

My premise is that organizations tend to form an internal culture which can be very difficult to change, especially if nothing appears to be wrong (i.e. people are still joining for that free Netters). How easy would it be to get anything done if you were a flaming liberal in the GOP? I have a feeling that the only way to get AMSA to focus is to redude their membership - something I doubt will happen so long as they give out "free" netters.

The fact that people are joining for the netters and not the platform works in your favor. These are votes you can mobilize. Run to be your schools rep and then for a national office. Get others who are like minded to do the same. Convince the netters recipients to back you -- they have already demonstrated their lack of loyalty by their willingness to be bought for the price of a paperback book.

 

[78222]

The fact that people are joining for the netters and not the platform works in your favor. These are votes you can mobilize. Run to be your schools rep and then for a national office. Get others who are like minded to do the same. Convince the netters recipients to back you -- they have already demonstrated their lack of loyalty by their willingness to be bought for the price of a paperback book.

I could, but that is WAY too much work.

I would much rather complain a lot about the current system without doing anything to change it.

 

[Law2Doc]

I could, but that is WAY too much work.

I would much rather complain a lot about the current system without doing anything to change it.

Figured that, and was calling your bluff.

 

[78222]

Figured that, and was calling your bluff.

I was a philo major in ugrad. We tend to forget that talk should be followed by action.

 

[deleted109597]

One might be able to get her school's spot. But mobilizing the rest probably isn't very likely. The problems?
The people who vote for those to put people in office are already very left leaning. One would have to run a grassroots campaign to get more than half of those people out of office. Then, a year later when elections came up again, one could run for speaker, etc. But since the majority of people at meetings are already very liberal as well, it would require some sort of funding to have all the conservative AMSA folk to go to the meeting. Just ain't happening.
Most people upset with AMSA's platform just go to the AMA anyway, since AMSA only serves medical students. It is like joining a 4 year club. Most people quit after they aren't, well, medical students anymore. The AMA is able to keep a small percentage of their medical students, and thus is able to do more.
The AMA did have a big GLBT thing last year after their president said something that could be construed as negative towards that group, but nothing really big came out of it.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

I'm joining the AMA.


LGBTBBQsauce!

 

[Rogue Synapse]

Is the vast majority of medical students nationwide really that conservative? I've met a good number of liberal med students (myself included) in my class, and I'm in deep red South Carolina.

 

[78222]

Is the vast majority of medical students nationwide really that conservative? I've met a good number of liberal med students (myself included) in my class, and I'm in deep red South Carolina.

Being liberal doesn't necesarrily go against whats best for doctors. I am liberal in just as many ways as I am conservative. My problem isn't Liberal Vs. Conservative, it's "relevent to medicine" Vs. "totally irrelevent to medicine political issues".

 

[mojojojo]

In terms of the LGBT issue, the main reason AMSA picked it up is because in 2005, the California Medical Association filed an amicus brief in the Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, supporting the right of physicians to refuse care to lesbians on the basis of the physicians' religious beliefs.

I think this was a pretty good issue to oppose especially since another health care organization was supporting it. Eventually the CMA changed their position. When I go to AMSA's site, it certainly isn't dominated by LGBT issues, but instead with issues like universal health care and eliminating racial disparities. I guess you could call these issues "lefty" but I would like to think that these are ALL of our goals as young medical students.

However, before paying for my AMSA membership I looked at the site. I paid for a membership because I liked their issues. You don't have to join. I was given Merck and Netter's by my school in first term anyway. 🙂

 

[jocg27]

Being liberal doesn't necesarrily go against whats best for doctors. I am liberal in just as many ways as I am conservative. My problem isn't Liberal Vs. Conservative, it's "relevent to medicine" Vs. "totally irrelevent to medicine political issues".

You might not agree with all of the politics, but it's not all fluff...

every single thing they're working for on this list is completely medically relevant. http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/

I'm part of AMSA, and no, not really crazy about every single thing they do. As in any organization, you can be the most active in the parts that most interest you. And there's actually a lot there, not just nonissues. There are people who throw themselves into community health, global health, medical education, or what have you. I totally support LGBT equal rights and everything, but for me personally, it's not my biggest issue. So I haven't been involved in that aspect - let people who are passionate about that issue run that part, and you be involved in what you're passionate about. I think there is a place for amsa, and as I make a point of mentioning every time it comes up, I don't think it's mutually exclusive with the AMA. They're different organizations with different purposes and goals...It's not a contradiction to be in both.

 

[78222]

You might not agree with all of the politics, but it's not all fluff...

every single thing they're working for on this list is completely medically relevant. http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/

I'm part of AMSA, and no, not really crazy about every single thing they do. As in any organization, you can be the most active in the parts that most interest you. And there's actually a lot there, not just nonissues. There are people who throw themselves into community health, global health, medical education, or what have you. I totally support LGBT equal rights and everything, but for me personally, it's not my biggest issue. So I haven't been involved in that aspect - let people who are passionate about that issue run that part, and you be involved in what you're passionate about. I think there is a place for amsa, and as I make a point of mentioning every time it comes up, I don't think it's mutually exclusive with the AMA. They're different organizations with different purposes and goals...It's not a contradiction to be in both.

That isn't all the issues they are working for. Hell, I agree with 90% of those issues.

I tend to take issue with:


Universal Healthcare (I can't believe there is a group of medical students lobbying for something that would destroy our earning potential and make us slaves to the government).

AA: nuff said

"AMSA's PharmFree Campaign": Give me free lunch or give me death - dinguses.

"Women in Medicine": Give me a break! Women should be in the kitchen! 😉 But seriously, i don't buy the "there aren't enough wimmens in leadership positions! OMG SEXISM!" argument.

 

[jocg27]

Universal Healthcare (I can't believe there is a group of medical students lobbying for something that would destroy our earning potential and make us slaves to the government).

Do you really believe that our earning potential is based on some excluding some people from medical care?


But I don't want to turn it into that...Your points are fair enough. It definitely should be known that amsa has a political slant, and isn't just the med-student club for people to hang out and chat pathology...Having a political slant doesn't make it invalid - most groups begin to get one when they get large enough in size, and when the group involves something as political as medicine, its probably nearly impossible to avoid. The professional medical associations, AMA, state organizations etc, have their own political slant as well. I can understand it's not for everyone...But that's not because it's irrelevant stuff to medicine. My point wasn't that everyone should run out and join amsa, just that it's not all fluff. Minor point, maybe, but i felt it important to mention.

 

[78222]

Do you really believe that our earning potential is based on some excluding some people from medical care?

Compare dermatology to a family physician.

Now my argument against socialized medicine isn't entirely selfishly based on $$. It's based largely on the fact that the government is even less competant than the HMOs. I feel that socializing medicine will lower the standard of care across the board, lower the amount physicians can earn, and reduce a doctors autonomy as a free agent. Further, people need to quit thinking of healthcare as something they are owed. How many people do you know that own a new car but complain that they don't have healthcare? How many people in this country complain about the cost of healthcare while being fat cows who have helped contribute to the current state of affairs?

But I don't want to turn it into that...Your points are fair enough. It definitely should be known that amsa has a political slant, and isn't just the med-student club for people to hang out and chat pathology...Having a political slant doesn't make it invalid - most groups begin to get one when they get large enough in size, and when the group involves something as political as medicine, its probably nearly impossible to avoid. The professional medical associations, AMA, state organizations etc, have their own political slant as well. I can understand it's not for everyone...But that's not because it's irrelevant stuff to medicine. My point wasn't that everyone should run out and join amsa, just that it's not all fluff. Minor point, maybe, but i felt it important to mention.

It might not all be fluff, but its not all pertinent to medicine either (at least from the perspective of student who they are supposed to be advocating for).

 

[dilated]

It might not all be fluff, but its not all pertinent to medicine either (at least from the perspective of student who they are supposed to be advocating for).

Yes. For all the rep the AMA has as being "conservative", the AMA student division appears to be focused on issues relevant primarily to .. gasp .. medical students.

AMSA appears to be primarily concerned with whatever PC gibberish is the flavor of the day, whether or not it helps or is relevant to medical students. The only value they have is the occasional issue where AMA-MSS is cowed by the attending population (i.e., work hours) and AMSA's "We're here to fight THE MAN" attitude is actually useful. I mean, AMSA actually brags that the reason they split off from the AMA had nothing to do with health care but was about the AMA's refusal to alienate members by taking a stand on political issues like the Vietnam War.

 

[fantasty]

I like AMSA, and I found some of their conferences to be the best learning experiences I've had outside of our curriculum.

If you really care about issues facing medical students and medical education as a whole, consider joining AAMC-OSR (Organization of Student Representatives). It's a little harder to get into, since each school only has 4 official representatives. But, they take serious, long-term stances on the evolution of medical education.

www.aamc.org/osr

 

[stargirl50]

Now my argument against socialized medicine isn't entirely selfishly based on $$. It's based largely on the fact that the government is even less competant than the HMOs.

What do you base this on? Competency has nothing to do with it. Besides, look at the VA system. It's not perfect, but it sure provides good evidence that the government would be able to provide quality healthcare at a fraction of current costs.

To echo just about everyone else-- if AMSA's not your thing, fine. Join the AMA. It's not like you don't have a group (with a ton of lobbying power) to represent your point of view.

 

[Law2Doc]

What do you base this on? Competency has nothing to do with it. Besides, look at the VA system. It's not perfect, but it sure provides good evidence that the government would be able to provide quality healthcare at a fraction of current costs.

I would also suggest that if the government was to provide universal health care, they would likely do so through the existing insurance company infrastructure -- it's much easier to give everyone an existing insurance company card funded by the fed than it is to set up an entirely new healthcare agency. And what's this about providing care at a fraction of the cost? That's not in anyone's proposed healthcare bills. Healthcare for all is going to be a COSTLY venture funded by tax or deficit dollars. But you can do it at a bit of a volume discount if you throw the business to existing players.

 

[Miami_med]

What do you base this on? Competency has nothing to do with it. Besides, look at the VA system. It's not perfect, but it sure provides good evidence that the government would be able to provide quality healthcare at a fraction of current costs.

To echo just about everyone else-- if AMSA's not your thing, fine. Join the AMA. It's not like you don't have a group (with a ton of lobbying power) to represent your point of view.

Before Medicare/Medicaid, Healthcare =5% GDP
After (currently)= we are closing in on 20% of GDP

The government already controls Medical Education, Medical Licensing, Residency Payments, and 46% of all healthcare expenditure (A number larger as a percentage of GDP than all medical expenditures combined before the 1960s)

Since the government is essentially controlling healthcare already, we are comparing improper things. The efficient VA (ask those who work there if it is actually efficient) avoids all of the qualification hassles that burden administration. So the government without an extra beauracracy is more efficient than the government with the extra beauracracy. I wonder what the efficiency numbers would be if we looked at fee for service healthcare? I'll bet it wouldn't look as bad.

 

[stargirl50]

I would also suggest that if the government was to provide universal health care, they would likely do so through the existing insurance company infrastructure -- it's much easier to give everyone an existing insurance company card funded by the fed than it is to set up an entirely new healthcare agency. And what's this about providing care at a fraction of the cost? That's not in anyone's proposed healthcare bills. Healthcare for all is going to be a COSTLY venture funded by tax or deficit dollars. But you can do it at a bit of a volume discount if you throw the business to existing players.

I agree that this would be a most likely first step. But what you are describing is essentially Medicare for all (private healthcare funded by the government) which would be prohibitively expensive. And I agree that universal healthcare will be a costly venture; however, I maintain that this care can be provided at lower prices in a universal system than in fee-for-service (such as Medicare for all). It has been shown, for example, that VA patients receive care at a lower cost to the government than Medicare patients. One important reason for this is the high quality of preventative care these patients receive; preventative care, in the current system, tends to be underutilized by many people due to cost, leading to higher costs later.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15536211&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

OK, that's all. Didn't mean to hijack the AMSA thread! 🙂

 

[Wrigleyville]

It would have been nice for me to know that I was joining a communist nut-job organization before I signed my name for the Netter's. I wonder if I can return the gently used atlas on the condition they wipe my name out of their records?

 

[NonTradMed]

Free Netter?! Left wing political org?!

Sounds like the perfect organization for me to join, but I already got my netters. 🙁

 

[leochiq]

One might be able to get her school's spot. But mobilizing the rest probably isn't very likely. The problems?
The people who vote for those to put people in office are already very left leaning. One would have to run a grassroots campaign to get more than half of those people out of office. Then, a year later when elections came up again, one could run for speaker, etc. But since the majority of people at meetings are already very liberal as well, it would require some sort of funding to have all the conservative AMSA folk to go to the meeting. Just ain't happening.
Most people upset with AMSA's platform just go to the AMA anyway, since AMSA only serves medical students. It is like joining a 4 year club. Most people quit after they aren't, well, medical students anymore. The AMA is able to keep a small percentage of their medical students, and thus is able to do more.
The AMA did have a big GLBT thing last year after their president said something that could be construed as negative towards that group, but nothing really big came out of it.

I have to say that I have been to many National, Regional, and Local meetings of both AMSA and the AMA MSS, and people should know that both organizations work the same way to decide their legislative/internal priorities and fully represent the membership that is active at those meetings. Both organizations use a House of Delegates that operates similar to our own national government so that each region, each chapter, each member, has equal opportunity to introduce and vote on written resolutions that guide the organizations resources and public stance. The only difference is that then the AMA-MSS students have limited seats at the AMA HOD to introduce their priorities and fight for their slice of the budget. AMSA is completely student run so that the priorities set at their meetings sets the organizations priorities as a whole. On paper, AMSA and the AMA Medical Student Section are not all that different in what they believe in and feel is medically relevant. The programming is brainstormed and carried out by the membership and Legislative action/allocation of resources is written via resolutions and voted on at the HOD by the membership. Therefore, as my good friend who had a high ranking leadership position in the AMA MSS once told me, "if you don't like what this organization stands for, stand up and take ownership yourself." Or make your way to the organization with beliefs most closely aligned with yours. At the very least, from our National government to the National leadership of AMA MSS and AMSA, if we are unwilling to participate in the process we have little credibility to complain.


Just a couple more points of clarification...there is an organization for physicians past the four years of med school that shares AMSA's priorities called the National Physicians Alliance http://npalliance.org/ . Secondly, the official strategic priorities of AMSA are 1) Fighting for Universal Healthcare 2) Eliminating Health Disparities 3) Advocating for Diversity in Medicine and 4) Transforming the Culture of Medical Education http://www.amsa.org/about/priorities.cfm , all of which I feel are undoubtedly directly applicable to our chosen field of service. If you are curious to all the various projects AMSA members have been involved in, search this database http://www.amsa.org/resource/projects/projectdirectory.cfm and I think that you will find that the membership is working on all kinds of diverse issues from Military Medicine, to Global HIV/AIDS, to financing medical education, to being a patient advocate.

 

[peanutbutterman]

I agree that this would be a most likely first step. But what you are describing is essentially Medicare for all (private healthcare funded by the government) which would be prohibitively expensive. And I agree that universal healthcare will be a costly venture; however, I maintain that this care can be provided at lower prices in a universal system than in fee-for-service (such as Medicare for all). It has been shown, for example, that VA patients receive care at a lower cost to the government than Medicare patients. One important reason for this is the high quality of preventative care these patients receive; preventative care, in the current system, tends to be underutilized by many people due to cost, leading to higher costs later.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15536211&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

OK, that's all. Didn't mean to hijack the AMSA thread! 🙂

Yeah, VA care offers preventative care but another reason that it is so cheap is that there are less attendings. The resident (ie. person working for the govt. basically for free) is the top dog.

 

[fantasty]

Yeah, VA care offers preventative care but another reason that it is so cheap is that there are less attendings. The resident (ie. person working for the govt. basically for free) is the top dog.

😕

 

[deleted109597]

Both organizations use a House of Delegates that operates similar to our own national government so that each region, each chapter, each member, has equal opportunity to introduce and vote on written resolutions that guide the organizations resources and public stance. The only difference is that then the AMA-MSS students have limited seats at the AMA HOD to introduce their priorities and fight for their slice of the budget.

Every student member has the ability to be a delegate. But every student is not a delegate at any meeting for either organization. And only those voted on by delegates (not the body as a whole) become leaders.
And if you haven't seen the amount of effort it takes to be chair, maybe you should ask Alik Widge or Ben Galper, since they are immediate past chair and chair, respectively, of the AMA-MSS. It isn't just showing up, it takes quite a bit of work. It took them both around 3 years to get where they are.
And students have plenty of say at the AMA-MSS house, they just don't have as much presence at the big house. The big house doesn't determine the MSS budget for each item, just the total budget for the MSS.
Since the majority voting in AMSA lean to the left socially (maybe not fiscally), then the leadership voted in will.

 

[Diceman M.D.]

It would have been nice for me to know that I was joining a communist nut-job organization before I signed my name for the Netter's. I wonder if I can return the gently used atlas on the condition they wipe my name out of their records?

I agree, good sir! Those Reds cannot be trusted! I heard the other day that they were behind the push to put the dreaded chemical "Fluorine" into our very water systems to sap us Red-Blooded Americans of our most vital fluids, if you know what I mean! *wink and a nudge* See you at the next McCarthy rally!

 

[rob14599]

I didn't get a free Netters when I joined, I just got a $50 Barnes & Noble gift card, and I had to fill out a damn credit card application in addition to the $65 AMSA membership fee to get it.

I just wanted something to put on my CV, I could care less what their politics are as I have absolutely no intention of getting involved in their hippie drum circles or "smoke" sessions or whatever it is they do.

 

[trustwomen]

It would have been nice for me to know that I was joining a communist nut-job organization before I signed my name for the Netter's. I wonder if I can return the gently used atlas on the condition they wipe my name out of their records?

Better still... send me your Netter's, and I promise I'll see to it personally. You can feel better knowing that your "gently used" atlas is safely in pinko hands, as was originally intended, and I can feel better about the fact that nobody gives free Netter's to Canadians.

It's a win-win!!! PM me. 😀

 

[traveler005]

I just don't understand why this topic incites so much anger in people. No one forces you to join AMSA. You are free to look up their priorities (which BTW do not necessarily include advocating "socialized" medicine, rather working for ANY PLAN that would improve upon the crap system we have right now) in the PPP and throughout the website. You can join without getting the Netters or the gift card. And if you are a member and you have issues with what the organization does, you are always free to contact the national leadership and express your opinion. LITERALLY.

I have been involved in AMSA for the past 3 years, and I have to admit that what I have gotten out of it goes way beyond politics. Do you feel comfortable speaking in public or even in front of your attending? Would you be ready to walk into your senator's office and have an hour-long discussion about medical student debt and how they can help alleviate this huge problem affecting almost every medical student? Are you in a huge load of debt and trying to figure out how to prevent the government from cutting your STAFFORD loans? Do you like to party? Honestly, being actively involved in AMSA has taught me to be a leader, and, no kidding, we have a great time when we go out on the town 😉 Oh, and by the way, there are amazing people in leadership who are from the right, left, and center. There may indeed be many people who express progressive values, but gaining their respect only requires that you express your opinion in an articulate and well-thought out manner.

***That's right, I said it, ANY PLAN to improve the current system. That could include HSAs, HDHPs, tax credits, etc, as long as those methods are shown to WORK. BTW, in case you didn't already know, we currently spend on average about $6,000 per person each year on health care, which is more than most other industrialized countries. Any sort of reform, which currently seems politically unfeasible, could be paid for for that amount or less per person. "Universal" just means that everyone can access the system, which they currently cannot, through some sort of health insurance or tax credit to make it more affordable.

 

[juliaskapik]

As a national leader in AMSA, I am quite surprised by the discussion in this thread. I am unsure how many people seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that AMSA represents a Communist organization, as we specifically do not endorse political candidates or any political party. No doubt some of the 60,000 members of AMSA are in fact Communists, but I am quite certain that far more are Republicans. I know people of all political affiliations within AMSA and I am proud that we work so hard to be inclusionary.

You are surely aware that the American health care system, in addition to being entirely unsustainable, unsafe, and inefficient in its current form, has pervasive health inequalities that lead our country to rank below many non-industrialized countries in terms of health quality despite spending a fortune more than any other country on earth. In as much as health care disparities contriubute significantly to health quality in this country (not to mention our American values of freedom and equality), discrimination against people of any sexual orientation is certainly a matter important to health.

I'm sure you are aware that gay and lesbian patients are less likely to visit the doctor for health problems, have more risk factors such as smoking and substance abuse, and the majority report negative experiences with physicians directly related to reporting their sexual orientation. In addition, gay marriage is also an important health issue in that one of the protections of marriage is the right to visit a spouse and family members in the hospital and to make medical decisions for them in the case that they are incapacitated. This is also the case for children adopted by gay parents. Many cases have occurred where parents and siblings of a patient made medical decisions against the partner's wishes because they disapproved of their own family member's sexual orientation. Assuming you offer gay and lesbian patients equal rights to those who are straight, this is a clearly unequal situation that harms our ability to care for our patients' according to their wishes.

I also doubt there are many organizations that have thousands of members which are not as diverse as AMSA. As a fourth year medical student at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and former president of our chapter, we routinely have about 70% of the student body enrolled as AMSA members, and I can say from experience that Hopkins does not constitute a particularly liberal studeny body. I have found that most students choose to get involved primarily on issues of their interest and have had great interactions with people who appreciated that AMSA helped protect their rights and goals as medical students. Of course not everyone in medical school chooses to be involved in leadership at every organization they join, rather, at AMSA, those students with a particular interest in health policy, leadership, and patient advocacy tend to take on the leadership roles. These of course are students who do not prioritize their studying over all else the world has to offer.

I am also quite surprised that those who are interested in medicine feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym and criticize those who are willing to make sacrifices and take on leadership roles rather than sitting at home insulting people on the internet. Some of the most interesting and passionate people I have ever met I know through AMSA and I cherish the opportunity to connect with more outstanding physicians at the convention this year. If you are not interested in AMSA (an organization whose name describes the members and not the fact that we only directly deal with issues of medical students per se), than please feel free not to join, to donate your Netter's to charity, to attend our national convention and try and make it a better organization. Do not, however, feel free to use an ignorant position and insults to criticize those trying to make our health care system and nation a better place.

For those interested in joining or learning more about the American Medical Student Association, please contact me direcly at [email protected] or visit our website at www.amsa.org.

Have a great end of summer,
Julia Skapik

 

[Dr Who]

Well said. For some reason I dont understand, there are people in this forum and elsewhere that tag anything that they dislike as "liberal", as if that were a curse and automatically are against it. While I am not gay, I know people who are and they deserve the same rights and respect that we enjoy as heterosexuals. People here first proclaim that they have "nothing against" gays then go off on tirade that borders on, at best, apathy, and at worst outright bigotry. If issues that deal with common law heterosexual marriage IS considered a medical and public health issue, then why not issues that deal with gay and lesbian couples. In fact I think it is a VERY important issue due to the social stigma and discrimination these people might face when looking for help, medical or otherwise.
I detest that some people who have "nothing against" these people are so fast to tag it as "liberal" and spill venomous attacks on a lifestyle simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Everything seems so black and white to these people, who seem to live in a world made up of the good (us) and the bad (them, whoever they might be). They miss out and disregard that life is full of complexities that are beyond simple labels. Hopefully, as they gradually become doctors and are explosed to the realities of life, they might open their eyes and see the true depths of human nature and understand at last, that there is more to us than simple "conservative and liberal" issues.
Dr who

 

[78222]

Well said. For some reason I dont understand, there are people in this forum and elsewhere that tag anything that they dislike as "liberal", as if that were a curse and automatically are against it. While I am not gay, I know people who are and they deserve the same rights and respect that we enjoy as heterosexuals. People here first proclaim that they have "nothing against" gays then go off on tirade that borders on, at best, apathy, and at worst outright bigotry. If issues that deal with common law heterosexual marriage IS considered a medical and public health issue, then why not issues that deal with gay and lesbian couples. In fact I think it is a VERY important issue due to the social stigma and discrimination these people might face when looking for help, medical or otherwise.
I detest that some people who have "nothing against" these people are so fast to tag it as "liberal" and spill venomous attacks on a lifestyle simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Everything seems so black and white to these people, who seem to live in a world made up of the good (us) and the bad (them, whoever they might be). They miss out and disregard that life is full of complexities that are beyond simple labels. Hopefully, as they gradually become doctors and are explosed to the realities of life, they might open their eyes and see the true depths of human nature and understand at last, that there is more to us than simple "conservative and liberal" issues.
Dr who

If you are trying to make me look anti-homosexual or even anti-liberal, then you are way off base. I am neither. I am a moderate who STRONGLY supports gay rights and gay marriage. I just don't think gay marriage is a medical issue (despite having read juliaskapik's convoluted "7 degrees of separation" connection).

 

[Dr Who]

If you are trying to make me look anti-homosexual or even anti-liberal, then you are way off base. I am neither. I am a moderate who STRONGLY supports gay rights and gay marriage. I just don't think gay marriage is a medical issue (despite having read juliaskapik's convoluted "7 degrees of separation" connection).

I believe you surereC, but as future physicians we have to learn to look above and beyond disease processes and the normal, standard doctor- patient relationship. I did a masters in public health which opened my eyes to the fact that social issues DO have both direct and indirect consequences on both public and individual health. Believe it or not I admit to being somewhat apathetic on issues that concern the gay and lesbian community, as it does not affect me directly. But as human beings I believe they deserve the same rights that you and I have and take for granted. They also have a right to happinness dont you think? Happier people are healthier people. Healthier people are less of a strain on the health system which not only helps us as future doctors, but also help to keep health costs down. So you see, it can be a medical issue.

 

[Darko]

I am unsure how many people seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that AMSA represents a Communist organization, as we specifically do not endorse political candidates or any political party. No doubt some of the 60,000 members of AMSA are in fact Communists, but I am quite certain that far more are Republicans. I know people of all political affiliations within AMSA and I am proud that we work so hard to be inclusionary.

I believe you surereC, but as future physicians we have to learn to look above and beyond disease processes and the normal, standard doctor- patient relationship. I did a masters in public health which opened my eyes to the fact that social issues DO have both direct and indirect consequences on both public and individual health. Believe it or not I admit to being somewhat apathetic on issues that concern the gay and lesbian community, as it does not affect me directly. But as human beings I believe they deserve the same rights that you and I have and take for granted. They also have a right to happinness dont you think? Happier people are healthier people. Healthier people are less of a strain on the health system which not only helps us as future doctors, but also help to keep health costs down. So you see, it can be a medical issue.

Preventing Iran from going nuclear would lessen stress in Israelis, Americans, and many Arabs in surrounding countries. Chronic stress has been linked to hypertension and premature death -- therefore this is a medical issue.

School voucher programs could grant urban youth a better chance at a decent education (and raise the property values of their parents' homes), thus increasing high school/college graduation rates and thus increasing health outcomes -- this could be a medical issue too.

Lowering taxes puts more money into peoples' pockets, increasing personal wealth. Richer people have better health, thus this could be a medical issue too.

Etc.

Any social issue can be extended into a medical issue. Yet social policy is the realm of politics. Is AMSA really endorsing public healthiness or a set of platforms belonging to a single political movement that happen to have some medical relevance?

The platforms I listed above are 'medical' issues with no less relevance than GLBT rights. However, these and other "conservative" ideas with health implications are left off the AMSA agenda. It's hard for me to accept the premise that AMSA doesn't endorse a particular political movement when its social platform borrows ideas from one narrow ideology and borrows none from opposing ideologies. While the membership may not be politically homogenous, it looks like the organization is.

Because of this discrepancy it is hard for me (and others apparently) to accept AMSA as the 'American Medical Student Association.' Maybe if AMSA pulled a KFC and stopped being an acronym Cerb would finally be happy.

 

[deleted109597]

I have been involved in AMSA for the past 3 years, and I have to admit that what I have gotten out of it goes way beyond politics. Do you feel comfortable speaking in public or even in front of your attending? Would you be ready to walk into your senator's office and have an hour-long discussion about medical student debt and how they can help alleviate this huge problem affecting almost every medical student? Are you in a huge load of debt and trying to figure out how to prevent the government from cutting your STAFFORD loans? Do you like to party? Honestly, being actively involved in AMSA has taught me to be a leader, and, no kidding, we have a great time when we go out on the town 😉 Oh, and by the way, there are amazing people in leadership who are from the right, left, and center. There may indeed be many people who express progressive values, but gaining their respect only requires that you express your opinion in an articulate and well-thought out manner.

I will second that any of these organizations allows you much broader access to information and people than you can get at your institution. Be it AMA, AMSA, or trade specific (which are just that, specific usually), you get to go to national conferences, meet national people, and drink beers with them. The good ones can paint the town red, then show up for a RefCom at 7am, or voting credentialling at 630am. You figure out when you get to sleep, and it is great preparation for third year (except for the drinking part).

Going to all those conferences helps with your CV as well. But don't let the secret out, because more than 50% of students won't go to 1 conference during their entire 4 years (depends on the school, etc).