Dismiss Notice

Interview Feedback: Visit Interview Feedback to view and submit interview information.

Interviewing Masterclass: Free masterclass on interviewing from SDN and Medical College of Georgia

another reason to go into medicine

Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - MD' started by brodaiga, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. brodaiga

    brodaiga Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    from wikipedia about the wage slavery topic:

    " If a worker fears losing his job more than the employer fears losing a particular worker, then the employer can govern the personal life of the worker." :scared:
     
  2. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    who is the worker and employer? besides, there is competition among employers that should ensure that no workers are ever enslaved. they always have a choice to leave for another firm. nobody can ever govern anyone else
     
  3. Doctor Bagel

    Doctor Bagel so cheap and juicy
    Moderator Emeritus 15+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    10,919
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    obviously, you have never had a real job.
     
  4. Doctor Bagel

    Doctor Bagel so cheap and juicy
    Moderator Emeritus 15+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    10,919
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    interesting. i'm looking forward to not having my pay cut each year -- seriously, this happened at my job because they got rid of our bonus program. so, they cut our pay, upped our insurance premiums and decreased our staff, so they upped our work load. if i weren't going to school next year, i'd be looking for a new job, but since these are general corporate trends, it's hard to escape this work environment.
     
  5. Pretty POHA

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    I ditto this.
     
  6. MoosePilot

    MoosePilot Y Bombardier
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Status:
    Medical Student
    Jobs aren't universally available. So to avoid losing a good one, people will do what their boss tells them to a large extent.
     
  7. chef_NU

    chef_NU G-Unit
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    To think from a different perspective:

    I agree with you when you say that jobs are not universally available (at least desirable jobs). However, I believe that in the US this need not be the case. The problem is that people who do have jobs are overcompensated for them, mostly due to political lobbying by organized labor. People have come to expect 401k, paid vacation, health insurance, pensions, etc., when the output that they produce does not warrant their employment because those workers would be unprofitable hires. The reason such jobs persist is that government supports such behavior through laws and subsidies (wrong). Were we to remove these constraints, we would be moving toward a shortage of labor rather than a shortage of jobs. In this environment, it would be not the government, but the free market that would dictate employee benefits. In this case, employers would HAVE to offer benefits to stay competitive.

    Some food for thought.
     
  8. Indryd

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student

    wow...I thought people who believed this kind of stuff were like bigfoot...you hear stories about them all the time, but no one really believes they exist...guess I was wrong...
     
  9. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    :thumbup: i support
     
  10. QofQuimica

    QofQuimica Seriously, dude, I think you're overreacting....
    Administrator Physician PhD Faculty Lifetime Donor Classifieds Approved 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    18,895
    Likes Received:
    4,111
    Status:
    Fellow [Any Field], Attending Physician
    I agree. If it's stupid, but it isn't immoral or illegal, and he tells me to do it, I do it.
     
  11. tacrum43

    tacrum43 Behold the mighty echidna
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    MDApps:
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    :sleep: The free market is your answer to everything.

    Is your child behaving badly? Well then just throw them out of your house and adopt a well behaved orphan instead. :rolleyes:
     
  12. prana_md

    prana_md springing
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Come work in a county ER with me for a few days and you'll see the results of people being denied such "luxuries." Medical school -- and medicine -- will hopefully challenge your blind faith in the free market.
     
  13. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    free markets answer all if theyre implemented properly. with emphasis on the last part

    its certainly :sleep: for those with little understanding of them
     
  14. chef_NU

    chef_NU G-Unit
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read some Kant. Suffering is the price of progress. I'm just saying that the solution I propose entails the least suffering by manipulating peoples' own self interest. No solution is perfect; the free market solution is the least imperfect.
     
  15. tacrum43

    tacrum43 Behold the mighty echidna
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    MDApps:
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Even if you do get the most progress through the free market, that does not mean that the ends justify the means. It might be better to have slightly less progress and more equality. This seems to work well for Western European countries. Speaking of which, have you seen the value of the dollar compared to the Euro lately?
     
  16. Flopotomist

    Flopotomist I love the Chicago USPS
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    15
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Arguing with Shredder about free markets is like arguing with George Bush abour Iraq. No amount of evidence, compassion, logic, or reality will change their views.
     
  17. osli

    osli Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Medical Student
    There are very clear, very well understood, and universally accepted situations where the free market does not produce anything resembling an optimum result. This is basic economics. Essentially any time that there is a transaction made for which not all the persons who are affected by that transaction are present there is an increased likelihood that the free market system (without corrections) will "get it wrong." This isn't based on some high and mighty sense of what is moral, compassionate, or any other garbage, but an unavoidable conclusion stemming from the simple summation of marginal cost and benefit for every person who was affected. If the free market hasn't optimized the above distribution, then it is not the ultimate solution in that case.

    That's why we have corrections to the free market system, usually in the form of taxes and criminal laws.
     
  18. chef_NU

    chef_NU G-Unit
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't understand why you cite the value of the dollar vs. the value of the euro as an example. America is not an example of a purely free market economy, and all evidence points to Europe heading into the gutter. Government programs in Europe that protect existing jobs do so at the expense of the labor market, which is what leads to things such as mass unemployment and rioting.

    Osli: I completely respect your objection -- under certain circumstances. The problem is that the circumstances you propose for the market to "fail" simply don't exist (or very rarely exist) in modern America. We live in a global economy, have access to prices and demand through a huge information network (i.e. internet, newspaper, tv, radio..), incorporate millions of competing businesses.... how can you argue that supply and demand will not produce a transaction very close to the real value of the exchange? Furthermore, advocates of a free market economy don't argue for lawlessness by any means. In fact, government does have a very important responsibility: to ensure competition and free trade. This includes making antitrust laws; it does not include giving subsidies to farmers to produce more than the market demands.

    Eventually people who don't like the free market idea will appeal to their last bastion of defense: "what about the poor people". Does this mean that I lack compassion? No. For all of the compassionate people out there: continue being compassionate. What we don't need is to force people to be compassionate. One reason is that once government begins to show favoritism to special interests, you can no longer draw the line between opulent nepotism and favoritism (the diagnosis I would give our country, and most countries in the world) versus true altruism. The other is that once you start redistributing wealth, the strength of the market is severely crippled due to lack of incentives and, again, unfair competition.
     
  19. Labslave

    Labslave Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Sometimes I think we should create caveats for threads like this detailing the prerequisite courses necessary to understand what the heck you guys are talking about.
     
  20. osli

    osli Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Medical Student
    First, I should be clear that I am a huge advocate of the free market system. I'm just not naieve enough to think that it needs no corrections to reach the optimum solution in every case. In other words, I much prefer a free market with occasional corrections (taxes, laws) to a socialist model, and in general prefer as little governmental intervention as possible.

    That being said, I think you are overlooking huge classes of situations where a pure free market needs some help. These situations don't stem from a lack of information, competition, or alternatives as you suggest, but rather as I tried to indicate from a lack of presence of affected parties. Look at cigarettes for a simple example. At the sale of a pack of cigarettes in a pure free market system, there are only two parties: the seller and the buyer. Supply on the seller side and demand (cost vs. benefit) on the buyer side will determine the price. But you must realize that in a completely free market, it is only the cost and benefit of the individual buyer, the smoker, that contributes to demand determination. What about other parties that are affected? What about those that don't like smoke in restaraunts? What about the increased burden on the health care system to treat the smokers? What about the increased burden on the health care system to treat the non-smokers? Costs and benefits of these other parties need to be taken into account, which is why the total societal marginal cost and benefit should be used to determine price. Perhaps, you might argue, placing additional health care costs on the smoker solves the problem, but I think it is difficult to deny that others are affected by the smoke as well, whether in their enjoyment of public places or their actual health.

    So we tax cigarettes. Ideally, the tax should correct the free market price to take into account the other affected parties. Another classic example is the lighthouse - free rider problem. It is there for anyone to use, whether they pay for it directly or not. In a free market system, who is going to pony up the money? Distributed costs/benefits are not handled well by free markets, with the result being very uneven distribution of costs with many free riders benefitting without contributing. Is that an optimum solution? No, so taxes attempt to correct the system. This is also the case with public roads, which partially explains a tax on gasoline (market correction).

    As for laws, consider the simple and extreme case of murder. If you hire a killer, the only two people present for the transaction are you and the killer. Obviously others are directly affected by the transaction but their cost is not figured into the price. In fact, the argument can be made that the value of a human life is quite large, thus creating a huge cost to the other parties that needs to be accounted for. In practically every civilized law system, this enormous cost is handled by simply banning the activity. Thus there are not only moral but also economic underpinnings to much of law.

    I guess the tricky problem is deciding how much correction is needed, which often equates to making an assessment of the cost/benefit of potentially affected parties. For cases like a lighthouse and roads, this is pretty easy, as the cost can be easily calculated and divided by the number of parties benefitting. For cigarettes, more difficult, as health care costs are approximate and it is even more difficult to put a price on enjoyment of public places. For things like welfare, where we are dealing with the very well being of other people, it is nearly impossible to make objective assessments and corrections; here decisions are made almost exclusively on opinion, morals, and emotion (which is why I have less faith in such situations that the corrections ultimately produce a better result than would be achieved without them).
     
  21. chef_NU

    chef_NU G-Unit
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are absolutely right when you say that certain things need to be provided by government such as roads, lighthouses, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you on those things, and I think pretty much everyone will agree on several very basic public commodities. I have a problem with your smoking example, however. This is a classic instance that demonstrates why we SHOULD NOT have government pay for things such as health care, etc. When you regulate behavior through government, costs and benefits are correspondingly skewed. I argue that we should tolerate everything possible, including victimless crimes. As Thomas Jefferson put it "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are no gods, or that there are twenty." I think that this example can be applied to countless situations. If you want to smoke, smoke. If you want to weigh 300 pounds, be my guest. But the government is not going to foot your health care bill. In this way, every consumer reaps exactly the costs and benefits of his or her behavior. In reference to your above post, I certainly hope you don't interpret my position as advocating lawlessness or anarchy. The state IS responsible to protect private property and preserve safety; however, it does not need to discriminate to show favoritism to the rich OR to the poor (or the white or the black, or the old or the young). Poor people are just as ignoble as rich people.

    Government subsidies and regulations ARE the annoying middlemen which cripple the market economy. Is the prime mover in this scheme financial outcome? Yes. But is it the best way to force humans to behave in a just and rationally self-interested way, much as they dislike it? Yes. You say that government needs to determine "how much correction is needed". I argue that government should have no part at all in such a determination. We simply don't need it.
     
  22. little_late_MD

    little_late_MD Ready To Jump
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    I think a great deal of the discussion here is placing too much faith in what any free market system is supposed to do. Free markets solve two types of problems, and two types of problems only: optimization and equillibrium. They do not tell you which is a better solution; they do not tell how much of something to produce; they do not tell you what is a "good" and what is a "bad"; they do not deal with existential, philosophical, moral, or ethical issues. There is a reason economics is called "the dismal science." In a representitive democracy we have a group of people who answer all these qualitative questions: your elected officials. The economics of any society cannot be addressed until you have first waded through the wishes of the people within that society, as represeted by the actions and decisions of their elected representatives.
     
  23. osli

    osli Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Medical Student
    How does placing the burden of increased costs on the smoker for his health problems alleviate any increased costs for the non-smokers who may be affected through second hand smoke? What does making him pay for his health problems have to do with me being miserable in a restaraunt because of the noxious smell? Where is my reimbursement? If we were to allow the free market system to operate, we would hope that in an efficient market the smokers in a restaraunt are charged more than the non-smokers to attempt to handle this situation. However, (1) this never happened and (2) it is difficult to say that such a solution is optimum. Further, what about the limited number of doctors available to spread their time over the increased number of chronically sick smokers (increased as cost is removed as a barrier to smoking for some people)? Does this not have ripple repercussions throughout the health industry, as resources are shifted (inefficiently, I might add) to handle this? What would you suggest... let the free market make more doctors? With a corresponding lowering of the average standard for becoming a doctor (a reasonable conclusion of opening the gates to doctorhood)? Where do the "below average" doctors newly created go... how about a new class of doctors who's sole responsibility is to take care of the chronic smokers? There we go, free market at work. Of course, this means either diluting the supporting health staff and technical resources or duplicating them. Now the cost of taking care of the smoker is greater than it is currently, where the cost is simply collected with a tax and pooled resources of the health care system can efficiently manage his care.

    Also, don't underestimate the scope of issues which my simple lighthouse or roads example applies to. Most of our taxes go towards public defense, service, transportation, etc. and the beauracracy in place to manage these areas. Morever, do you think situations like monopolies are efficient market situations? Would you espouse no correction in these cases?

    I've heard this said many times by many people, and while I agree in principle I always try to point out that identifying victims is not as straightforward as on the surface it may seem. As I tried to highlight with the complexities of the smoking example, economics is rarely simple and clean. Each change in the system has hundreds of downstream effects. Which is the primary reason why a simplistic mantra such as "the free market will always provide the best solution" is just silly.
     
  24. newguy357

    newguy357 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Finally some sanity on this site. Usually it's just closet fascists running around in panic that we need more governmental regulation.

    Yea history has sure shown how effective that is (sarcasm).
     
  25. -Goose-

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    9
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    hahaha!!!!!!
     
  26. newguy357

    newguy357 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your post is a perfect example of the following flawed reasoning:
    I am lightly bumping my head against the wall and also feel a headache, perhaps if I increased the force with which I slammed my head against the wall the headache will go away. Just substitute government regulation for banging your head and economic trouble for headache.

    They go to restaurants where the owner has banned smoking, or if there are none, they start their own restaurant, ban smoking, and get rich. This is a superior solution to having the government dictate that all restaurants must be smoke free, which is the current trend of course.

    Again, if you would END the subsidies to the health care industry then this problem would go away entirely. The smokers pay for their own health care. If they choose to live stupid, dangerous lives, they will pay from their own pocket. The health industry then flourishes on the stupidity, and resulting increased monetary flow, of the class in question.

    Your reasoning is flawed. It's like how the government paid for studies on the health care industry and decided there would be a shortage of specialists. So they added a subsidy favoring specialists. Then they realized years later that there were too many specialists and too few family practice physicians. Rather than removing the subsidies favoring the specialists they merely increase the subsidies for family practice physicians. This is moronic. And the more tinkering the more of this occurs. That is socialism, eventually.
     
  27. osli

    osli Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Medical Student
    Excuse me? Dude, you're reading waaayyy to much into what I have posted. Your analogy is entirely a non-sequitar. I favor no intervention whenever possible... on the economic front, my thoughts are most in line with what people equate to libertarian thinking. However, feeling that corrections to the free market are best avoided when possible does not equate to being so ignorant that I refuse to admit that such situations exist where corrections are beneficial.

    The smoking example was but one example out of thousands used to explain the origin of some vice taxes. Perhaps it wasn't the best... perhaps I should have chosen another. But instead of attacking the example you continued to attack what was actually your flawed presumption of my holistic view on the subject. You need not have made that mistake - my views were there for you to read, a much easier and safer approach my friend.

    For the large part, I would rather corrections be limited to address public distribution and avoidance of the free-rider problem. This includes broad areas like roads, public defense, border control, and their ilk. But I think you have overlooked the obvious: if the free market should have created a niche for smoke free restaraunts, increased airline prices for smokers (and discounts to non-smokers), etc., then where were they? After hundreds of years of operation, I can't cite enough examples of the "free market solution" wrt restaraunts to fill the fingers on one hand. Yet without non-smoking areas (and the laws that require them) restaraunts lost some patronage to those most offended by the smoke. The minor costs of implementing non-smoking areas were to their financial benefit, yet the overwhelming (nearly unanimous) majority did not undertake the cost.

    Why? Because the free market system is guaranteed to find an equilibrium. That's all.
     
  28. willow18

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    GM just "free-marketed" 30,000 jobs. Now it is true that the 40+ years of unions are somewhat to blame for it (as well different health care/pension system of the two countries) but the truth is just that we have too high a standard of living in this country compared to the rest of the world. Now, there's nothing wrong with having high standards, but it cannot survive in a truly free market. If you think the Japanese companies are a problem, wait till the Chinese start producing cars. American made anything will be a thing of the past. There are limits to free-marketism. Lets just hope this country wakes up before its too late.

    EDIT: btw, this thread belongs in studentpolitico.net
     
  29. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    I'm no Marxist, but "free-market" is the reason why we have wars. Someone makes the weapons, they are sold, resold and eventally, something happens and we wonder why? The human race is generally very perplexing. For instance, I sat in room once filled with cardiologists, and while they were talking about plaque formation in the coronary arteries, they all ate pizza. Money needs to be redefined as a means of exchange. Right now it is different, and thus we have greed. At what price do we achieve happiness? Government itself, maybe thought of as a big business, only that tax dollars are invested in someareas: "War on Terror" and NIH. This will be interesting. Hopefully, all nice topics for conversation, and all related in that human hypocrisy is a problem. What do you think??? :idea:
     
  30. willow18

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    3
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    Wow, what a relevation. Run for president.

    Seriously though, you make some great points, but you're all over the map there. Pick a topic and elaborate on it if you want to make a point. Free market is why we have wars? Ummmm, I don't recall free market being in play during the 15th, 16th, and 17th century when everyone had wars all the time. And people just looked forward to wars to display their romantic blood and guts. Nor is there any free market in Sudan, Ethiopia, and many other places where wars are commonplace just for tribal, religious, or other silly reasons.

    Re the doctors eating pizza, it's the oldest story around. Pulmonary specialists smoking and so on. No answer for that really.

    My goodness, we should let pre-meds run this country. Seems like we know this stuff better than all the pol-sci people. eh, whateveh.
     
  31. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    Hi,
    Thanks for your sarcastic vote of confidence. Interesting. Although there was no free market in the early centuries you describe, there was just rape and destruction of civilzations to acquire wealth. Emperialism. How do you think those countries, not only in the middle east or Africa get their weapons. Europe, the US, China and other countries supply them at a price. So.....I don't claim to know everything, but I do read and have traveled a lot. Emperialism exists in many forms. Why do stockholders "need" to make a profit? Why can't companies just "give" medicine to African countries suffering and an HIV epidemic? Humans are hippocrites. And that shear capacity of human nature and ignorance is a problem. Just look at the "nonexistent" global warming. Have you seen the ice caps? It's interesing. Who has the better genetic make up? Who has the greater moral superiority? Does God necessarily choose a side during a college football game? And if USC beat Notre Dame, does that mean that USC beat God? No offense. It's comical. But my ramblings are nothing more than probes. I want to see and read some comments. And yes, I have met quite a few politicians, like Bill Frist, MD, who did make it into the senate. So, it isn't impossible. Look at the History of government, especially here. Look at the founders of Mass. Gen Hospt. in Boston, or the first hospital in Philly. I mean, knowledge is everywhere? Is it not? Thanks for your post. In the end, dust to dust. And especially, in our end, nothing will be here. So we better make progress before our sun runs out of fuel. And we better make it fast, because sadly, what we share is common humanity. We are all here...alone...on this tiny blue ball being propelled through space. Keep it coming.
     
  32. thegenius

    thegenius Senior Wharf Rat
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    199
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    I agree...this thread has been hijacked by Economics 201 theory. There is no place for it here on a Pre-Allopathic Medical School Forum.
     
  33. thegenius

    thegenius Senior Wharf Rat
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    199
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    So if you smoke and you give me cancer through second hand exposure to smoke, are you going to pay my health care bills?
     
  34. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    I'm not an Econ major. And this is not a Hijacking!
    Funny, everything in this country runs on economics, even the very decisions you will have to make once you become a doctor and go into either private practice of a hospital, which are for profit. These topics are all involved with medicine and humanity. Funny though. It is only for conversation, but people shy away. Respond. It not, this will will end. Read the post. You will learn that somewhere in there medicine is intricately woven. ;)
     
  35. Jon Davis

    Jon Davis I killed the bank.
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    1
    The true free-markets are just one model to follow. Yes, its a convenient system but if it were implemented without any regulation or controls, there would be a HUGE class differences. Basically, the haves and the have nots, literally. The controls are there to stop that from happening. However, these days the classes are dissolving into the haves and have nots; the middle class is shrinking. The Bush administration fully believes in free economy, and look where we are. Thousands upon thousands have lost their jobs. The trickling of business to overseas has increased dramatically in recent years. The deficit has exploded to record numbers. The free market will probably gobble up the private social security accounts of millions. This is the face of New America, a free market driven country yes, but one that will be heavily divided based on classes.

    I laugh at the people that blindly prescribe that free-markets are a great solution if "implemented properly". What a load... :rolleyes:
     
  36. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    Jon,
    thanks for understanding. What you speak of is what we will inherit. As doctors, lawyers, whatever. Thanks for your insight.
     
  37. Jon Davis

    Jon Davis I killed the bank.
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, my history book says that there was major empire building by the French, English, Dutch, Portugese, etc. The occupation and looting of the victims of war were taken to make the empire richer. The free-market drove the wars, the richer and powerful you are the more business you could conduct. The spice trade fueled many battles. I could go on but...I dont care anymore.

    Later.
     
  38. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    It's funny being well rounded. Isn't it? I wonder how our founding fathers would view our comments. I also remember that most of our government was founded by quite a physicians...who care about the well being of society.

    http://www.massgeneral.org/news/for_reporters/overview.htm

    http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/philadelphia/hospital.htm


    And don't forger grant writing for future researchers and HMOs for those going into private practice. Almost everything runs on currency.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/founding-fathers-of-the-united-states

    "Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.

    A few of the delegates were wealthy. Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin were also extremely well-to-do. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent. Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably." from above website.
     
  39. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    its digressed but its all relevant to healthcare. i really think free markets would solve problems that are in medicine, but there would be disparities. and ppl arent cool with disparities so they force everyone else to subsidize their elimination. free markets and disparities are just human nature though, so any systems that fight against them run into problems. ppl are all inherently unequal in their abilities and desires, and this has to manifest itself somehow. no amount of social engineering can cure this, its not like normal engineering. now genetic engineering, hmm...

    the solution to the smoking dilemma is to have privately owned air. that would also minimize pollution. taxation is a roundabout way of doing this. owning restaurants is a direct way. now owning air out in the open is a little harder, and i realize that in certain situations like these its hard to implement free markets. as for roads--private toll roads are feasible, as public roads/freeways are typically in bad shape and take forever to construct.
    markets pretty much built the world as we know it. the civilized parts anyway. there would be class differences with totally free markets, but the goal of capitalism has never been equality of outcomes but rather equality of opportunities. so even if there is disparity, ppl should not have boundaries that prohibit them from rising up the ladder. instead they should have incentives that make them want to do so, and no incentives that encourage them to stay in their current positions and leach off of others via public spending and govt programs
     
  40. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    Marijuani is illegal, but cigarretts are not. Alcohol is the only drug, to my knoweledge, that an individual can die from withdrawl of, yet it is legal. I wonder where diabetes comes from? Could it have something to do with diet? No, it's all genetic. Wait, there's type II diabetes which goes hand in had with cardiovascular disease, which goes hand in hand with smoking. If I were to make my own political party it would be the "Logistocratic" party. Where if you committed a single act of hippocrisy, you would lose membership. Oh wait, this means that we actually have to evolve above human nature. This is too much to ask. hmmmm...... ;)
     
  41. pagemmapants

    pagemmapants Unknown Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    20
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    I've never understood why it's so bad to have "Haves" and "Have Nots" if the "Haves" work their asses off for what they get and the "Have Nots" don't. Were the prospect of an ideal "free market" system POSSIBLE, this is the situation that would result. Unfortunately, due to a remarkably complex system of laws and regulations imposed by the historical reigning elite to maintain the status quo, this is not the case. When it comes right down to it, pure capitalism would be a fantastic situation if everyone in the world had integrity. Similarly, pure communism would be a fantastic situation of everyone in the world had integrity. Again, unfortunately, this is simply not the case, so we have to settle with something in the middle. I, for one, am thankful that there are still trace amounts of pure capitalist sentiment in the US that there DOES remain class disparity. If one's higher class is hard-earned rather than inherited, I see no dishonor in it.
     
  42. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    :confused: i dont understand all of this hypocrisy business. but as for genetics, everything has a genetic component. even the propensity to engage in marijuana or cigarette, alcohol etc. drugs should be legal, the war on drugs is a huge failure and source of govt spending, also lots of organized crime and even street crime. so even though a lot of ppl harp about genetic discrimination in medicine and insurance policies, it really goes on everywhere in some form or fashion.

    pure communism can never work bc its against biological instinct to work for others' welfare. communism leads to starvation and death time after time, from the soviets to the early american pilgrims. anyone who engages in 100% pure altruism to strangers is not in line with evolutionary success. relatives are a different story. even for those who inherit wealth, inherited wealth cannot continue indefinitely unless it provides goods or services to society. so i dont harbor any animosity toward wealthy heirs--its luck and chance, just like genetic endowment
     
  43. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    1: There is nothing wrong with getting more for doing more. This is a good thing. However, when does getting more end? I am simply talking about using money as a means of exchange. Nothing can dishonor one's achievements. except the inevitable death that we will all have. And I don't mean our individual death, I mean when our Sun run out of Hydrogen. I hope that we evolve more that just seeking our own selfish needs.

    2: By Hypocrisy, I mean laws that cannot be enforced. Like sodomy. How can one enforce this, and if so, why would we place those who violate sodomy in place where it will be practice on them regularly. Additionally, cigarretts have a label from the surgeon general. I'm sure that if I shot you in the head (no offense) I would be imprisoned. But wait we have a choice for smoking. We can choose to pull the triger. And as for our laws, many are outdated, left for interpretation by a few people. If the citizenry was more aware of these laws, they would surely demand change. It' s like having a fat doctor tell you about cardiovascular disease. Hypocrysi is everywhere. And one more thing, as a scientist, I would making the claim that everything is genetic. Just look at viruses and bacteria. Is HIV infection genetic? Maybe laziness has a genetic component. But I would very careful about making a claim about everything being genetic, there is also the environment. I wonder if our own thoughts and actions are guided by transcriptional machinery. Then nothing would be our fault. It's the genes. It's more difficult to not do what is innate to us, then to do so. What do you think? :cool:
     
  44. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    wow, the sun burning out? humans will be long gone by then. at least a billion years, longer than life on Earth has even existed. i dont think anyone considers time in that frame. i dont think death is inevitable--there is a scientific fountain of youth waiting to be found. i think conquering aging is inevitable, but within this lifetime is another story.
    what laws are the citizenry unaware of? they are all publicly available. the constitutional laws were written in such a fashion as to be timeless, or at least that was the intention. thus statements werent included about horses and carriages and such. but i dont know much about law or its history.

    as for genetic propensities--some ppl are genetically inclined to engage in the behavior that would make them more susceptible to HIV. so, even if genetics doesnt account for everything directly, it does affect everything indirectly. even getting struck by lightning (adventure and risk genes, also tolerance for rain) or winning the lottery (risk again). you make a good point about our thoughts and how they relate to genes. im certain genes affect how we think and what we think about. for example, you probably know some ppl who are more perverted or demented than others, and i suspect that has a genetic component. thoughts are nothing more than biological phenomena, theres nothing fancy about them. emotions, memories, likes and dislikes--same applies. so yes, i would say our thoughts are unquestionably influenced by transcriptional machinery. i think a lot about genetic/biological determinism versus free will. of course its neither one nor the other and the answer lies somewhere in between (nature and nurture essentially), but i personally lean far toward the nature/deterministic side.
     
  45. DrBowtie

    DrBowtie Final Countdown
    Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,489
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    I agree 100% :thumbup:
     
  46. Shredder

    Shredder User
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Medical Student
    in austin they enacted a public smoking ban, including private bars and clubs downtown. business has since plummeted. ppl who dislike smoking/smokers/smoke think its all the rage. they dont understand the big picture. woohoo, lets outlaw other ppls rights one by one according to how we see fit. and then we can wait until its our rights' turn.
     
  47. DrBowtie

    DrBowtie Final Countdown
    Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,489
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    In my school newspaper someone wrote a pro-ban column. Now this is editorial with some really dumb comments but here is an excerpt:

    "But honestly, how much of a negative impact would these policies have on business? Hospitals have smoking bans but no one is avoiding them."

    I wrote a scathing rebuttal which should get published basically entailing that the places where the ban will be enacted serve as LEISURE and ENTERTAINMENT, not provide healthcare.

    I'll PM you the final copy when its done.
     
  48. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    If we live indefinitely, which I hope we don't we will need a couple of worlds. I'm not as optimistic as you. But I do agree with you that we will be gone before the sun expands. As for laws, just go to your public library, or your law school, and look through the statutes. I have. And california offers me no real reason as to why Gerbils are illegal...but they are. And that is just one. Go to your law school's library...and I'm certain that you will find some rather obnoxious and pointless laws. In Mass. you will find a bill which proposes to decreases the punishments for beatiality. Just ask yourself why killing someone is wrong. Personally, I would never kill anyone, I am a pacifist, but inherently human life is worthless. We give it value. But if I continue to ask why killing is wrong people quote the Bible but cannot justify their point of view. Personally, I have not read any clinical studies pointing behavioral genes and the propensity to engage in certain acts. You border on speculation. Do a nice pubmed search. I'm sure you are not correct.
     
  49. Napoleon4000

    Napoleon4000 Senior Member
    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Other Health Professions Student
    By your premise Brettbachelor and newguy357 the government should not fund NIH. Why do any research to cure disease? People should take care of their own health and watch what they eat. Flawed. I for one think that smoking and alcohol should be banned altogether. Less liver disease, accidents, cancer and CVD. More people feeling better. Except for those who require the occasional escape from reality. Again, this is against human nature.
     
  50. DrBowtie

    DrBowtie Final Countdown
    Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,489
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Its not about smoking. I don't smoke, I don't like smoking.

    It is about telling people where they can or can't do something that is legal that I find absurd. Limiting what can or can't happen in the business.
     

Share This Page