Do you need cheering up?

[Code Brown]

this thread gets SD's 3 out of 5.

Only 3/5 ? Come on, 50 messages in less than 24 hours? And for the most part, fairly constuctive posts too. How bout 4/5?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Code Brown]

This thread has started to get a little crazy. Lest we not forget that most of the poeple we know live pretty well on less than 100k for the whole family! We may not be rich but unless your a dumba$$ you should be able to live a very nice life. As for the 50% divorce rate, at that salary level you would think one would have a good lawyer on retainer (can anyone say prenup) As for taxes, get a good accountant and live on whats left, it will be plenty. The fact we are debating the dollars when those of us that make it through will all be financially secure is amusing.

That was the point of the whole thread in the first place, hence the title "Do you need cheering up?". $200K or $150K take-home, what's the big difference? Both are pretty awesome and it was supposed to be a nice light at the end of the looooooong tunnel.

 

[rcd]

come on. at the least, you'll be making $100k / year insurance and student loan payments included. fyi even $100k is a ton of cash. and you'll have an awesome job. and some other good stuff too.

there, that was pretty easy.

 

[Mothra]

We either pay for it in the doctor's offices through Medcaid or in the emergency room when people ar about to die. Naturally, its better for the patient and cheaper for taxpayers to deliver care in the doctor's office.

I would agree, from the standpoint that a person (indigent or otherwise) would want treatment sooner rather than later, but it's not necessarily cheaper. (Think about it.) Either way, you're not on point. The indigent pay relatively nothing for the services they receive under whatever government programs they qualify for. The taxpayers, and mostly the "rich" (i.e. you, in the not too distant future) will pay for it. You are going to be paying for it.

If you include payroll taxes and exclude the taxes that the rich simply elect to not pay, the US actually has a flat taxation syatem.

Which taxes do the rich "simply elect not to pay"? The last time I checked, electing not to pay taxes required by law is a crime. I'd suggest that no one pays taxes they can "simply elect not to pay". Monsieur Kerry kept his tax credit - didn't you?

If you include the subsidities companies get from the government, we also have a rather flat "entitlement scheme".

I'd be more than happy to eliminate corporate/industry subsidies. It isn't quite as simple as that (the economics, I mean), but I'd be willing to give it a whirl. I mean - a lot of blue collar jobs depend on that specific transfer of wealth - so that doesn't seem to me to be where a liberal would often go to increase revenue. But whatever - you write to your Congressional delegation, I'll write to mine.

The market gave rise to HMOs. Bill was not able to change the health-care system.

I was there, my friend. Until the late 80's and early 90's, HMOs were relatively unknown except in the upper midwest. But once the government takeover was thwarted, it was "HMOs! HMOs! HMOs"! That was when each and every Blue Cross & Blue Shield gave up the fight and created HMOs of their own. That happened during Clinton I, and it was the policy of the Executive branch. It was all we heard for over three years! So - even Bill and Hill will use sound economic theory from the Reagan playbook from time to time. They wouldn't admit it publicly, of course...

While the HMO model certainly makes sense for the consumer (patients and payers alike), it bothers me that physicians have had to take it on the chin. They are our brightest and most gifted people, and I, for one, would prefer that physicians be paid more than the attorneys that hound them and the insurance companies that harass them. But I would never propose or support such a law. Let free markets rule.

Anyway, how do HMOs increase the supply of health-care?

I'm glad you asked. The HMO business model delivers more healthcare services per consumer dollar (in both the public and private sectors) - hence the overall increased supply. But don't believe me... ask your favorite GP over the age of 50. Ask him/her how much more they give away today in services than, say, in 1988 - and how much less they get for a routine physical, for example. My dentist makes it a point to show me on his statement the writeoff (negotiated discount) each time I have an office visit. And - get this - under the terms of my dental insurance, he has to give away routine cleanings (that tells us his dental hygienists generate little or no revenue) - which also explains why he feels it necessary to very pointedly market expensive procedures to me while I'm sitting in the chair.

BTW Since you are new to SDN, I want to tell you that you should be a little more courtious when you post.

Fine. But I would encourage you to find and understand the facts and the science before relying on someone else's political hyperbole and emotionalism.

---------

My goal here was to help set expections. My advice to all future physicians is "it ain't like it used to be". Sure, you can make a lot of money - but there's a flock of MBA dweebs at an HMO somewhere that are looking at the claims rates, and next year, the $ you will get for that "golden" procedure will go DOWN. That's just the way it's going to be. And oh by the way - all that talk about "the rich" and how they should pay more? That's going to be you, babe. Only you. Whatever the HMOs do give up is going to be taxed heavily. The IRS stuff I mentioned previously in the thread is the ultimate reality show. And - get used to being castigated in the press, and by mostly liberal politicians whenever it's convenient to them. You're bad, even evil, though you don't deserve it. Your motives will always be suspicious and wrong just because you gross a lot, and even though you have the same desires as every one else.

So - I say you need to WANT to be a physician. You need to have the gift of being able to deal with suffering people without going over the edge yourself. As a profession, it's never going to be any easier.

 

[Ambs]

what a cheerful thread

 

[tacrum43]

I wonder, Mothra, if you realize just how much healthcare $1 trillion dollars (see my above post) can pay for? Also, the Monster truck rally announcer way in which you post is getting old. Stop it. STOP IT. STOP IT!

 

[Mothra]

I wonder, Mothra, if you realize just how much healthcare $1 trillion dollars (see my above post) can pay for?

I saw the post, and chose to ignore it because it was so far from the truth it wasn't worth responding to. But you brought it up again, and, well..... I guess I'll just have to shoot that fish in its barrel. Oh what the heck, let's blow away the barrel, too.

But I have to ask - where does the $1 trillion figure come from? The anti-defense kook fringe (the so-called Union of Concerned Scientists) claimed SDI would cost $3 trillion. After their junk science methodology was publicized and discredited, they revised their estimates downward again, and again, and again.... well, you get it. (You can get some of the play-by-play at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gahr120100.asp.)

Truth is, after Reagan dismantled Communism (without firing a shot, I might add), interest in SDI waned. Total cost of SDI over ten years: $39.7 billion (this is a matter of public record). That $39.7 billion is about half of what the Department of Education will spend during FY 2005 (talk about waste!).

Once again - and I have to presume now that you would consider yourself a proponent of science - you should stick to the facts, not the emotional stuff.

 

[tacrum43]

Hmmmm.... and tacrum43 was the one that dislikes name-calling. Sounds like a double standard to me.... but not completely unexpected.

And now, to tacrum43's foray into the "art" of numerology:

Truth is, after Reagan dismantled Communism (without firing a shot, I might add), interest in SDI waned. Total cost of SDI over ten years: $39.7 billion (this is a matter of public record). That $39.7 billion is about half of what the Department of Education will spend during FY 2005 (talk about waste!).

Once again - and I have to presume now that you would consider yourself a proponent of science - you should stick to the facts, not the emotional stuff.

I wasn't name calling. I said your posts sounded like a monster truck rally announcer because of all the dramatic capital letters, bold face type and exclamation points. I didn't say you were a monster truck rally announcer, only that your posts sounded like one. There's a difference, you called Howard Dean "Howard Doom". Now that is name calling.

A lot of people I've talked to make the argument that whatever Reagan spent on defense it was worth it because it led to the downfall of communism. Let's say that it actually did and that is worth the very large amount of money it cost. You still didn't have a response to all of the money we've spent on the Iraq war. It has no delusions of grandeur associated with it (save perhaps the fact that the Iraqi people do have freedom from a dictator) but why this dictator and why now? And why with YOUR MONEY?

Why is money spent on education a waste? Aren't YOU about to shell out $150,000+ for medical school? It's convenient that the money spent on education is a waste, unless of course it's being spent on YOUR education (and I bet you wouldn't mind the subsidized state tuition either) Now that's a double standard.

You felt that my original post didn't even require a response because it was so ridiculous. That's an easy way to dismiss everything I said. Wouldn't socialized medicine be a good thing for the country? How can something so basic as healthcare be run on a capatalist system?

And for the record, I consider myself a proponent of trying to help people with science. Emotion is part of being human, and even scientists are human, don't forget that.

 

[Law2Doc]

i can't help that it turned into a religious debate, or rather a evolution vs creation debate; it started as a sincere question about med schools and I was not the one to turn it around

I think I need to apologize to Psycho Doc -- this thread now has become as ridiculous as his.

 

[tacrum43]

I think I need to apologize to Psycho Doc -- this thread now has become as ridiculous as his.

Yeah maybe, but it gives us something to do.

 

[Pingu]

Don't lease, buy and where's my lexus?

This was the most intelligent post made on this thread

NEVER EVER lease a car, you are essentially 'renting' the car from them. It is a horrible financial decision.

And lexus is at the top of the lists for maintaining value as well as dependibility (they don't break down as much as bmw or god forbid range rovers) I have friends with range rovers who would set them on fire just to get rid of the dang thing.

 

[NotShorty]

Yeah, it's not all about the money, but what the hell.

So, assume that as a physician, you will pull in around $300,000 per year. After taxes/malpractice insurance, you take home around $210,000.

This means that you'll have a monthly draw of $17,500 (this is some major cash!)

Now here is your budget (These numbers are fairly accurate):
Lease a 2005 BMW 745i - $1000 per month
Lease a 2005 Range Rover - $1000 per month (for the spouse)
$800,000 mortgage (this is a nice pad) - (30 year @ 6%) - $4700 per month
$200,000 in student loans (20 years @ 3%) - $1100 per month
Utilities (cable, phone, electricity) - $500 per month
Groceries - $700 per month

Even after splurging on some nice cars and a big ass house (unless you live in Coastal Cali), that still leaves you with about $8500 per month (or $102,000 for the year!) to play with or to invest.

(on a side note, that $200,000 in student loans won't really be a big deal)

Sorry for not reading this whole thread, but where's the retirement fund, kids' expenses, the sh1t your SO will pressure you into buying, vacations, unexpected bills, etc.

You're promoting the "credit card" lifestyle where people are overly concerned about what they'll buy, who they'll impress, and no concern for saving.

Are we cheerful yet?

NS

[edit:] After reading this thread, I'm not sorry. Just more shouting by both sides from behind their political party's stereotypes.

 

[Mothra]

A lot of people I've talked to make the argument that whatever Reagan spent on defense it was worth it because it led to the downfall of communism. Let's say that it actually did and that is worth the very large amount of money it cost.

I can go with that, because to say otherwise would be incorrect.

We faced an aggressive enemy in the Soviet Union that could incinerate countless millions of Americans in less than 45 minutes. By treaty, there was no defense to ballistic missile attack; the mutual deterrent was "if you hammer us, then we'll hammer you". What Reagan accomplished with the threat of SDI was that the Soviets added up the chips and decided Reagan had the royal flush. The game was over! Not only could the Americans figure out how to build and deploy SDI, the Soviets could not without shutting down their miserable economy. Around the same time, with Poland rebelling, and the Slavic countries unravelling, the USSR was coming undone. The tour de force was "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - a great day in human history!

Hundreds of millions of people knew freedom and elections for the first time. How many of those countries have invaded their neighbors since?

And it was all Ronald Reagan's doing.

You still didn't have a response to all of the money we've spent on the Iraq war. It has no delusions of grandeur associated with it (save perhaps the fact that the Iraqi people do have freedom from a dictator) but why this dictator and why now? And why with YOUR MONEY?

I don't think we were discussing Iraq... This war will be debated for some time, although I believe history will say Mr. Bush was correct. I also believe that there are some (mostly liberals) that will never credit him with doing anything positive at any time throughout his entire life. It's a cause celebre.

They said the same things about Reagan in the 80's that they say about W today. Reagan was stupid, G. H. W. Bush was really in control, etc. Reagan was just an actor with no substance - just a face on the television like some Barbie on the 6:00 news grinning at us with perfect teeth while telling us about a plane crash. Bush is just a pampered daddy's boy, a redneck idiot. On and on and on. Sound familiar?

But Reagan was the right man at the right time in history. Even the most vitriolic liberal pundits are now saying the Reagan was a giant. I put him up there with Washington (who could have been King) and Lincoln (who ended slavery and saved the Union).

Mr. Bush may be another one that was the right man at the right time in history. I mean, we have tried everything to try to get the Middle East to settle down. We've tried absolutely everything - money, subterfuge, pleading, paper treaties, alliances, peacekeeping forces, you name it... we've thrown the entire U.S. State Department arsenal at them. The only thing we haven't tried is freedom.

The jury's still out - but I hope it works, not so that Mr. Bush gets the credit, but so that it works. (I suspect that like true Social Security reform, many liberals will want Bush's efforts to fail even if it's the right thing to do. Such is the paralysis of partisan politics.)

Why is money spent on education a waste?

Errr... you're not on point, but maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that bureaucrats rarely do anything well. I can make better decisions concerning my education (and allocate my tax dollars) much more efficiently than any D.C. bureaucrat.

Aren't YOU about to shell out $150,000+ for medical school? It's convenient that the money spent on education is a waste, unless of course it's being spent on YOUR education (and I bet you wouldn't mind the subsidized state tuition either) Now that's a double standard.

It won't be a waste, I can assure you. In my case, it's loans, loans, and more loans - the classic capitalist scenario. And - it's an out-of-state school - no breaks there. But if it was an in-state school, I actually pay taxes, so an in-state subsidy wouldn't bother my conscience at all. I've been paying for it for years - in advance, as far as I'm concerned.

By the way - isn't capitalism great? I mean - if there was no capital, or no one willing to let me use their capital, there would be no loans. I love capitalism.

You felt that my original post didn't even require a response because it was so ridiculous. That's an easy way to dismiss everything I said.

Yes/It was./Uh huh.

Wouldn't socialized medicine be a good thing for the country?

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO. (Sorry about the capital letters.) Socialized anything has always been a failure because it always leads to shortages. Always leads to shortages. Always always always. Just ask the British, the Canadians, and anyone from the former Eastern bloc. Shortages are part of that flawed system. Providers make less, too. So everybody loses: patients, providers.... wait a minute - the government doesn't lose, does it? It gains power! The power to decide everything, ultimately - who gets what treatment when, who gets paid for doing what service... regulations, laws, countless bureacrats, forms.... Oh yeah, we can live without that. Any time!

How can something so basic as healthcare be run on a capatalist system?

It works. Look around you. Ours is the best system in the world - primarily because we have choices (HMOs notwithstanding). The choosing (the effect of all of our individual decisions) drives innovation and keeps pressure on costs through competition. Take a microeconomics course if you can. Our economy and how it works is truly awesome.

And for the record, I consider myself a proponent of trying to help people with science. Emotion is part of being human, and even scientists are human, don't forget that.

That's a very noble and worthwhile goal. But when reason gives way to emotion, we could be in real trouble. Physicians also need to be level-headed. You have to use facts, logic, and science - otherwise, there's only osteopaths... wouldn't that be a nightmare... We have to have some allopathic types. Have to.

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's test time. There are three questions, one of which has six parts.

(a) Which taxes do the rich "simply elect not to pay"?

(b) The concept of entitlement is woven throughout our legal system. By this I mean someone or some group of people is entitled to some benefit regardless of the cost to anyone else.

Everyone has the same basic requirements to get along in this world: food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, and medical care.​

(1) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best food money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I get chicken soup when those people over there get steak and potatoes!"​

(2) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best clothing money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have to wear K-Mart rack rags when those people over there have leather jackets!"​

(3) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best housing money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have an apartment when those people over there have houses!"​

(4) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best education money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I only have high school diploma when those people over there have college degrees!"​

(5) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best transportation money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have to ride the bus to work when those people over there have cars!"​

(6) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best medical care money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I can't get a hip replacement when those people over there can!"​

(c) How much power should we (Americans) be willing to give to someone in the government to make these decisions for us?

A better way of saying it is - how much freedom are we willing to give up for appearances' sake? And don't tell me that socialism/bureaucratic control of anything works well for everybody - because there's absolutely zero proof of that. It would make us feel good to say that it does, but - it doesn't. Do you honestly believe that the rich and powerful (that's going to be you soon) will be denied anything - here or anywhere else in the world? Has this ever happened in human history?​

Study hard, and do your best!

 

[Ross434]

Now, it's test time. There are three questions, one of which has six parts.

(b) The concept of entitlement is woven throughout our legal system. By this I mean someone or some group of people is entitled to some benefit regardless of the cost to anyone else.

Everyone has the same basic requirements to get along in this world: food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, and medical care.​

(1) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best food money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I get chicken soup when those people over there get steak and potatoes!"​

(2) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best clothing money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have to wear K-Mart rack rags when those people over there have leather jackets!"​

(3) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best housing money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have an apartment when those people over there have houses!"​

(4) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best education money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I only have high school diploma when those people over there have college degrees!"​

(5) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best transportation money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I have to ride the bus to work when those people over there have cars!"​

(6) Are all Americans entitled to the absolute best medical care money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

i.e. "It isn't fair that I can't get a hip replacement when those people over there can!"​

NICE!! Good work Mothra..

and btw, Reagan Rules

 

[Mothra]

If we could nationalize healthcare (I still find it hard to comprehend that people have a right to a lawyer but not a doctor) it would be the biggest social progress we've made since the civil rights movement.

"Scalpel. No, wait - machete. No, make that a shotgun!"

This so-called "right" extends only to criminal defendents. We have a right to speak with an attorney if we are arrested - if you can pay for it. We have a right to speak with an attorney for free if we can't afford one. We don't have to speak to an attorney at all if we don't want to.

But that right doesn't extend to civil cases. For example, I'm not entitled (there's that pesky word again) to an attorney if I want to sue you for malpractice. It costs me something for that, via the attorney's hourly rate from beginning to end or as a 33% share of any settlement. Either way, I have to pay. Here too, I can go it alone, without an attorney, if I want to.

I suggest all of this equates very nicely to the law that requires hospitals to treat anyone that shows up in the emergency room. That same law doesn't require you to treat for free anyone that shows up in your suburban waiting room claiming poverty... I mean - you would try to discern if they were eligible for public assistance, right? If you think that isn't the way it's done, check with your personal GP.

The really stunning fact is that no one goes without medical care in this country. No one. Maybe you have to make a difficult choice about writing a big check, or maybe you have health insurance through your employer, or maybe you're on Medicaid or Medicare. Either way, you will get medical care. No one in this country is prevented or precluded from getting medical care. It may not always be the best available, and it may not be in the ritziest of settings. But everyone gets basic medical care if they want it, period. Most of the reasons why people don't get treated have nothing to do with physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, or governments; most are laid at the feet of patients.

Think it through, carefully.

I say - what a system! It works!

-----------------------------------------------------------

This question may be on the final:

We now know that no one is entitled to legal representation in civil matters (as opposed to criminal matters). Are all Americans (criminal defendents) entitled to the absolute best legal defense money can buy, even if they can't afford to pay?

When answering this question, consider yourself to be hands down the absolute best defense attorney practicing in your medium to large American city. If your fellow citizens decide to give the government the power to force you to defend the many indigent criminal defendents in your community, how many months will it be before you decide to stop practicing law?

 

[Code Brown]

NEVER EVER lease a car, you are essentially 'renting' the car from them. It is a horrible financial decision.

This is not always true. Leasing makes sense when you don't want to tie up your capital in the car and can put this money to good use in some other form that will make more money than the loss from "renting". For most people, leasing isn't the best idea, but for some, it would be inefficient not to.

And lexus is at the top of the lists for maintaining value as well as dependibility (they don't break down as much as bmw or god forbid range rovers) I have friends with range rovers who would set them on fire just to get rid of the dang thing.

But it's still a Toyota. You need a car with STATUS! lol, the Jones' need someone to keep up with right? I agree with you and the Land Rover Discoveries. But that's like saying the C240 is a mercedes. Technically it is made in the same factory, but it's not a "real" mercedes. That said, I would take a Range Rover over a Landcruiser. It has more mystique and let's face it, when you pay $70K+ for a car, that's what it's all about.

 

[PublicEnemy]

i should have leased my 612 scaglietti F1, its depreciating like crazy.

 

[tigress]

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO. (Sorry about the capital letters.) Socialized anything has always been a failure because it always leads to shortages. Always leads to shortages. Always always always. Just ask the British, the Canadians, and anyone from the former Eastern bloc. Shortages are part of that flawed system. Providers make less, too. So everybody loses: patients, providers.... wait a minute - the government doesn't lose, does it? It gains power! The power to decide everything, ultimately - who gets what treatment when, who gets paid for doing what service... regulations, laws, countless bureacrats, forms.... Oh yeah, we can live without that. Any time!

Hmm...if this is true, why do the countries with the highest life expectancies also have socialized healthcare? Not even debating that it's better (which I happen to think it is), this must at least point to the fact that it's comparable. The US is about 19th in terms of life expectancy (here is a link that shows that, and a list of countries above us: http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/uih_bw/uih_2.htm) Also, infant mortality rates in the US are higher than in 41 other countries, including Cuba and China ( ). Now I'm not saying we ought to be a socialist country, but there's a lot here to argue for at least socialized medicine.

Here is a good comparison between the US and Canadian health systems, which basically concludes that neither is better. That at least refutes your claim that "socialized anything has always been a failure.":
http://www.answers.com/topic/canadian-and-american-health-care-systems-compared

A quote from above:
"While Canada’s health system is cheaper, it compares well with the American one statistically. Life expectancy in 2002 was about two and a half years lower in the United States than Canada. With Canadians living to an average of 79.8 years and Americans 77.3. Infant and child mortality rates are also markedly higher in the United States.

When comparisons of public satisfaction are made between the two nations' health care systems, the numbers for Canadians and insured Americans are almost identical. This holds true in average annual doctor's visits. While a good number of Canadians complained that they were unable to receive treatment due to long wait lists, overall Canadians had no greater number of people unable to receive treatment than insured Americans.

A much greater difference was seen, however, between uninsured Americans and Canadians. Overall the uninsured group was much less satisfied, less likely to have seen a doctor, and more likely to have been unable to receive desired care than both Canadians and insured Americans. This leads to numbers somewhat lower for Americans."

 

[tigress]

I say - what a system! It works!

See above. Unless, of course, you think being ranked 42nd in infant mortality rates is "working"...

 

[tigress]

I also just want to say, Mothra, that your tone strikes me as considerably condescending. What a way to win people over to your way of thinking! Of course, I can't complain, since I strongly disagree with most of what you're saying; what's it to me if you come across as patronizing and arrogant?

 

[ellia08]

Hmm...if this is true, why do the countries with the highest life expectancies also have socialized healthcare? Not even debating that it's better (which I happen to think it is), this must at least point to the fact that it's comparable. The US is about 19th in terms of life expectancy (here is a link that shows that, and a list of countries above us: http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/uih_bw/uih_2.htm) Also, infant mortality rates in the US are higher than in 41 other countries, including Cuba and China ( ). Now I'm not saying we ought to be a socialist country, but there's a lot here to argue for at least socialized medicine.

Its kind of off topic but I've actually often wondered about this statistic (I mean this seriously and not in a sarcastic way). Americans seem, from a purely observational standpoint, to have greater incidance of disadventageous lifestyles (incredibly high rates of obesity, for example) which probably do not promote longevity.

In order to draw information on efficacy of health systems by comparing the life expectancies you must assume that all individuals under study are about the same (and have approximately the same bad behaviors), right? At least qualitatively, this does not appear to be true to me. Does anyone know of some simple statistical reason that this can be done that I am not seeing or of a study that addresses this?

Thanks.

--ellia

 

[tigress]

Its kind of off topic but I've actually often wondered about this statistic (I mean this seriously and not in a sarcastic way) because americans seem, from a purely observational standpoint, to have such tremendously disadventageous lifestyles (witnessed in our incredibly high rate of obesity which is probably not great for longevity).

In order to draw information on efficacy of health systems by comparing the life expectancies you must assume that all individuals under study are about the same (and have approximately the same bad behaviors), right? At least qualitatively, this does not appear to be true to me. Does anyone know of some simple statistical reason that this can be done that I am not seeing or of a study that addresses this?

Thanks.

Yeah, I agree with you to a certain extent. I don't think you can separate the effect of poor lifestyle and poor healthcare. On the other hand, one of the main reasons poor lifestyle in America leads to such debilitating health problems is the lack of healthcare. Many problems with obesity and diabetes, etc, could be kept under better control if people had more access to healthcare. I also think we have a responsibility for health education and preventative medicine.

On the other hand, lots of places on the list of infant mortality have lower standards of living than the US, and face more in the way of epidemic diseases like cholera, etc. I'm confused as to how we could possibly have a worse infant mortality rate than China. But I looked at the methods used to determine that data, and they looked sound.

My basic point is just that you can't dismiss socialized health by saying it doesn't work, because evidence points to the contrary. It does make sense to look more deeply at the whole issue, of course.

 

[ellia08]

Yeah, I agree with you to a certain extent. I don't think you can separate the effect of poor lifestyle and poor healthcare. On the other hand, one of the main reasons poor lifestyle in America leads to such debilitating health problems is the lack of healthcare. Many problems with obesity and diabetes, etc, could be kept under better control if people had more access to healthcare. I also think we have a responsibility for health education and preventative medicine.
...

My basic point is just that you can't dismiss socialized health by saying it doesn't work, because evidence points to the contrary. It does make sense to look more deeply at the whole issue, of course.

Oh, I wasnt trying to make a point about socialized health care. I was trying to make a point about statistics.

I dont know that I agree that all lifestyle issues could be solved by increased medical intervention. (in fact, isnt that the whole point in socialized care) The effects of obesity arent solved by lipitor, they are corrected by decreasing your BMI. Ditto for problems like smoking. Sure intervention prolongs life some, but never being exposed prolongs life to a much greater extent.

As for infant mortality, its not really something I've thought about a whole lot (Im headed more for basic science medical research etc) but it seems that a country whose citizens choose a generally poor lifestyle from an early age would be at increased risk for pregnancy. Now note here that I am not saying that disease, starvation, etc do not increase risk as well because of course they do play a huge role.

My point is: an unhealthy population will die sooner even if medicine might increase its life expectancy. a healthy population will in general live longer.

everything in averages.

We are not healthy ergo we should die sooner. seems logical at first glance anyway. But of course, I have nothing to back up this train of thought which is why I was wondering if anyone else did. I dont mind if Im wrong, but it would be interesting to know.

 

[Mothra]

See above. Unless, of course, you think being ranked 42nd in infant mortality rates is "working"...

That's like saying the Soviet society of the 1950's was "better" than ours. They had fewer murders, robberies, etc. What did they know that we didn't? Let's see... could there have been other factors in play? Not to liberals... Just pick that little needle out of the haystack, and..... AH HAH! "Conservatives want to starve children!"(/sarcasm)

I think ellia08 figured it out, too.

If I seem condescending, well... maybe I seem that way to you. Liberals are poor debaters because they nearly always ignore or obfuscate truth. Truth, common sense, logic - are all anathemas for liberals. I mean - a conservative that has the audacity to fight back - with facts! - has some sort of personality disorder. But let's be honest. Whenever a conservative makes a point, liberals resort to either name-calling or changing the subject if they can't shout the conservative down (or deny free speech at all, whatever it takes). When was the last time anybody heard a pro-choice speaker at a Democrat National Convention?

So far, my positions stand unchallenged. Try again.

 

[Mothra]

I also just want to say, Mothra, that your tone strikes me as considerably condescending. What a way to win people over to your way of thinking! Of course, I can't complain, since I strongly disagree with most of what you're saying; what's it to me if you come across as patronizing and arrogant?

My point must be hitting home.... I got a "condescending", a "patronizing", and an "arrogant" all in the same response!

Let's be honest - I think you recognized that your argument fails after you posted it... But that's OK...

 

[tigress]

Hmm, actually I responded directly to your arguments. And I didn't call you names, I said your tone was condescending and you come across as patronizing and arrogant. I don't know you, but I know what I read. I find it amusing that you turn this into a liberals vs. conservatives argument. I would say you're the one changing the subject. I stand by everything I posted, which, by the way, is factual (I guess I do have the audacity to fight back with facts). Let's see you post evidence for your argument that socialized healthcare always fails, since I posted evidence to support the opposing argument. You're the one on defense now.

p.s. In response to your signature, "Liberalism - n. a particularly debilitating mental defect cured by massive doses of facts, logic, science, and truth." : Why then are the vast majority of scientists liberals? As a scientist myself, I would suggest that science is much more in keeping with a liberal political philosophy than a conservative one. Go to any scientific institution and you will be surrounded by liberals of all sorts.

 

[cfdavid]

This thread has started to get a little crazy. Lest we not forget that most of the poeple we know live pretty well on less than 100k for the whole family! QUOTE]

I'm a 30 year old non-trad pre-med, and I can say that it's my personal opinion that, depending on where you live (excluding the high cost of living extremes- NY, and Cali etc.), you must make at least 200k to truly have some options. I've made an average of 85k plus some added perks over the last 5 years and I can say that it really doesn't leave you with much to play with. Sure, 100k sounds o.k. to most people, and many live on MUCH less, but with a family (I have it easy- just me and my dog) it must be really tough. Forget nice vacations, enjoying a financially stress free life, and actually SAVING a whole lot. I just don't think you can actaully get ahead on 100k. Also, look at the debt load of the average family. It's kind of scary.
People are MAXED out on their mortgage and credit cards. I actually think trouble is on the way if we see a real estate bubble burst.

 

[Ross434]

This thread has started to get a little crazy. Lest we not forget that most of the poeple we know live pretty well on less than 100k for the whole family! QUOTE]

I'm a 30 year old non-trad pre-med, and I can say that it's my personal opinion that, depending on where you live (excluding the high cost of living extremes- NY, and Cali etc.), you must make at least 200k to truly have some options. I've made an average of 85k plus some added perks over the last 5 years and I can say that it really doesn't leave you with much to play with. Sure, 100k sounds o.k. to most people, and many live on MUCH less, but with a family (I have it easy- just me and my dog) it must be really tough. Forget nice vacations, enjoying a financially stress free life, and actually SAVING a whole lot. I just don't think you can actaully get ahead on 100k. Also, look at the debt load of the average family. It's kind of scary.
People are MAXED out on their mortgage and credit cards. I actually think trouble is on the way if we see a real estate bubble burst.

My family is making around 140k in an extremely high cost of living area. We're in a nice house, have 3 nice cars, go to the symphony, have season sports tickets, my parents go to europe every year, they send one of us to $2500 camp every summer, and they're still saving $1000/month towards my sister's college, while paying for some of my cost of living while i'm in college. Lets say you didnt have any kids. That'd be approx $300/week of spending money in addition to "living nicely".. I'd say thats pretty damn nice. And we're in one of the highest cost of living areas around.

Lets say you make that *yourself* without a family. I know a couple of IM people working downtown in the city as part of an HMO making 170k. Thats pretty sweet cash considering you're not going to have a big house or more than one car. Add in a spouse, maybe she makes 70k a year. (I know I wouldnt marry someone who wasnt driven and smart). That can more than cover your living expenses, and more cars, and a bigger house.

Now lets say you're a specialist. say. the average *employed* noninvasive cardiologist, or a general practice orthopedist. You're making $15,000 a MONTH. AFTER taxes.. Holy Hell people..

What if you were really greedy and went into medicine for the money and became a private practice heart surgeon or a private practice neurosurgeon.
You're probably making $27,000 a MONTH after taxes.

I cant believe you people.

 

[cfdavid]

My family is making around 140k in an extremely high cost of living area. We're in a nice house, have 3 nice cars, go to the symphony, have season sports tickets, my parents go to europe every year, they send one of us to $2500 camp every summer, and they're still saving $1000/month towards my sister's college, while paying for some of my cost of living while i'm in college. Lets say you didnt have any kids. That'd be approx $300/week of spending money in addition to "living nicely".. I'd say thats pretty darn nice. And we're in one of the highest cost of living areas around.

I'll admit that I've had to buy a ton of stuff over the last few years, and these are one time buy type things like lawn mowers, landscaping, furniture etc....... (I've moved into new homes twice and the cost of moving into a new home is huge just to get settled in) The list goes on. So, I guess around 150k is a decent income provided you're already established etc.

Sounds like your family is doing o.k. though. That's good.

 

[Ross434]

I'll admit that I've had to buy a ton of stuff over the last few years, and these are one time buy type things like lawn mowers, landscaping, furniture etc....... (I've moved into new homes twice and the cost of moving into a new home is huge just to get settled in) The list goes on. So, I guess around 150k is a decent income provided you're already established etc.

Sounds like your family is doing o.k. though. That's good.

Thanks for elaborating. I have a close friend who's fairly young (mid 30's). He makes about 150k a year. He has a fairly small house, but he has all the nice toys. He always has a porsche and a bmw, and the latest plasma screen tv's and such. Imagine if you were making 160k, a little less than twice what you're making now. You'd probably be able to live really well.

 

[cfdavid]

Thanks for elaborating. I have a close friend who's fairly young (mid 30's). He makes about 150k a year. He has a fairly small house, but he has all the nice toys. He always has a porsche and a bmw, and the latest plasma screen tv's and such. Imagine if you were making 160k, a little less than twice what you're making now. You'd probably be able to live really well.

Yeah, I agree. Also, there's actually a big difference in lifestyle capabilities between mid-80's and 140's etc.

 

[tacrum43]

(sigh) So emotional. I will cede to that you're the authority on name calling so that we can move on...

Goody.

I don't think we were discussing Iraq...

They said the same things about Reagan in the 80's that they say about W today. Reagan was stupid, G. H. W. Bush was really in control, etc. Reagan was just an actor with no substance - just a face on the television like some Barbie on the 6:00 news grinning at us with perfect teeth while telling us about a plane crash. Bush is just a pampered daddy's boy, a redneck idiot. On and on and on. Sound familiar?

I was talking about Republicans in general. Perhaps there's a war that Reagan was involved in that we don't know about? How about Iran Contra?

Seeing as I'm the authority on name calling, I'll agree. But, Republicans have plenty of names for Democrats too, so don't act so innocent. "Flip Flopper", "Screaming Dean" etc.

But Reagan was the right man at the right time in history. Even the most vitriolic liberal pundits are now saying the Reagan was a giant.

Who exactly? And who says vitriolic? I had to break out the dictionary for that one. Wouldn't "cynical" work just as well?

Mr. Bush may be another one that was the right man at the right time in history. I mean, we have tried everything to try to get the Middle East to settle down. We've tried absolutely everything - money, subterfuge, pleading, paper treaties, alliances, peacekeeping forces, you name it... we've thrown the entire U.S. State Department arsenal at them. The only thing we haven't tried is freedom.

I thought it wasn't our job to police the world (that's what Bush claimed before he was elected the first time).

Errr... you're not on point, but maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that bureaucrats rarely do anything well. I can make better decisions concerning my education (and allocate my tax dollars) much more efficiently than any D.C. bureaucrat.

Well, I'm sure handing vouchers out to people to pay unrelgulated "schools" would be so much smarter.

It won't be a waste, I can assure you. In my case, it's loans, loans, and more loans - the classic capitalist scenario. And - it's an out-of-state school - no breaks there. But if it was an in-state school, I actually pay taxes, so an in-state subsidy wouldn't bother my conscience at all. I've been paying for it for years - in advance, as far as I'm concerned.

You'd like not to pay taxes though, hence your reason for being a Republican and encouraging other to join, right? After all you pointed out that it was Reagan who saved us from a 77% tax bracket

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO. (Sorry about the capital letters.) Socialized anything has always been a failure because it always leads to shortages. Always leads to shortages. Always always always. Just ask the British, the Canadians, and anyone from the former Eastern bloc. Shortages are part of that flawed system. Providers make less, too. So everybody loses: patients, providers.... wait a minute - the government doesn't lose, does it? It gains power! The power to decide everything, ultimately - who gets what treatment when, who gets paid for doing what service... regulations, laws, countless bureacrats, forms.... Oh yeah, we can live without that. Any time!

No government or government with no authority = anarchy

There may not be "shortages" for those that can afford private insurance, but there are for those who can't.

Take a microeconomics course if you can. Our economy and how it works is truly awesome.

I've taken an econ class. It was a cake walk. I understand economics just fine. Business and economics are easy subjects compared to say, organic chemistry.

That's a very noble and worthwhile goal. But when reason gives way to emotion, we could be in real trouble. Physicians also need to be level-headed. You have to use facts, logic, and science - otherwise, there's only osteopaths... wouldn't that be a nightmare... We have to have some allopathic types. Have to.

If a noble and worthwhile goal, then how come you don't support it?

I wasn't aware that allopathic doctors don't have emotions. Apparently another conservative fact that I wasn't aware of in my liberal (thought I'm really a moderate) ignorance. I think what you meant was that we need some hospital administrators watching the bottom line.

A better way of saying it is - how much freedom are we willing to give up for appearances' sake? And don't tell me that socialism/bureaucratic control of anything works well for everybody - because there's absolutely zero proof of that. It would make us feel good to say that it does, but - it doesn't.

You know, Germany seems pretty prosperous. Yes, I know we helped bail them out after WWII, but they have a form of socialism. So do a lot of other countries that all enjoy very high standards of living like Norway, Denmark, Finland, England, etc.

You know, it takes a really long time to respond to arguments point by point like this. You better not be a troll. Eh, even if you are, it helps pass the time waiting for schools.

 

[tigress]

an interesting look at the topic of this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/fashion/27200K.html?ex=1109739600&en=5f4f0beefc2e8606&ei=5070

yes, you have to have a nytimes username and password to get in....sorry

 

[Ylime]

an interesting look at the topic of this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/fashion/27200K.html?ex=1109739600&en=5f4f0beefc2e8606&ei=5070

yes, you have to have a nytimes username and password to get in....sorry

Here's a generic name and pw you can use if you don't want to register...

n0b0dy42
n0b0dy42

 

[Mothra]

p.s. In response to your signature, "Liberalism - n. a particularly debilitating mental defect cured by massive doses of facts, logic, science, and truth." : Why then are the vast majority of scientists liberals? As a scientist myself, I would suggest that science is much more in keeping with a liberal political philosophy than a conservative one. Go to any scientific institution and you will be surrounded by liberals of all sorts.

I think all you've managed to say is that some scientists - that are also liberals -ignore facts, logic, science, and truth. At best, wouldn't that be like a policeman that speeds when off-duty?

P.S. Oh wait - I'm sorry - policeperson. What was I thinking!!!

 

[LUBDUBB]

Well. whatever happens with my income, I cannot and will not join the republican party.

I concur.

 

[siritchy]

All I think you've managed to say is that some scientists - that are also liberals -ignore facts, logic, science, and truth. At best, wouldn't that be like a policeman that speeds when off-duty? (DUH)

I said - think it through!

P.S. Oh wait - I'm sorry - policeperson. What was I thinking!!!

Academic institutions (where most research occurs) are government funded with grants and have an interest in the redistribution of wealth. The faculty are shielded in general from dealing with market fluctuations, healthcare insurance, etc.

 

[Mothra]

I was talking about Republicans in general. Perhaps there's a war that Reagan was involved in that we don't know about? How about Iran Contra?

What about Iran Contra? There was only one person Lawrence Walsh could find that had anything to do with Iran/Contra, and the fool gave Col. North immunity before he knew what North would say. [I'd have liked to have seen North go to prison - he was guilty!] Instead North walks. Profoundly stupid. Walsh was so convinced Reagan was involved he let the real perp walk. Kinda like Dan Rather - who was so happy to get those fake memos, he ran the story without verification. Now Walsh and Rather will forever inhabit the trash-heap of history.

But, Republicans have plenty of names for Democrats too, so don't act so innocent. "Flip Flopper", "Screaming Dean" etc.

Well - Kerry really was/is a flip-flopper, and Dean was a screamer. But I will concede that there's a whole host of nicknames for Democrats...

Who exactly? And who says vitriolic? I had to break out the dictionary for that one. Wouldn't "cynical" work just as well?

I'm sorry. I'll reduce the number of syllables. Or maybe I should hyperlink the more complex words to an online dictionary? I don't want you to hurt yourself cracking open a heavy book...

I thought it wasn't our job to police the world (that's what Bush claimed before he was elected the first time).

Wouldn't it be nice if that weren't true? (You really don't want to go down this road - I will nail you to the wall.)

Well, I'm sure handing vouchers out to people to pay unrelgulated "schools" would be so much smarter.

Uh oh... that sounds like the old DixieCrats: "Naaaa... let's confine the poorest, most unprepared children to the ghetto. Ah mean - what would they do if they was to leave the plantation? Ah say, no! No, suh! We'll take care of'em. They need to stay in the Democrat fold!" In other words: separate and unequal.

I, on the other hand, would like to see underpriviliged kids have the same access to good education as the rest of us. As in equal opportunity. What a concept!

I say wreck the government's stranglehold on public education! It can only get better.

You'd like not to pay taxes though, hence your reason for being a Republican and encouraging other to join, right? After all you pointed out that it was Reagan who saved us from a 77% tax bracket

I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. No, I'll pay reasonable taxes without a whimper. But right now, well over half of what I earn goes to a government somewhere. That's ridiculous. I'd like to see it ratcheted back to a third, maybe even a quarter. I'd like to see "government" take in less and spend less than that, for a change.

Tax reduction is only one reason why we should all be conservatives. It just so happens that Republicans are more likely to reduce taxes.

No government or government with no authority = anarchy

See this on a poster somewhere? Relevance?

There may not be "shortages" for those that can afford private insurance, but there are for those who can't.

Did you take the test? Looks like you're going to get a zero....

I've taken an econ class. It was a cake walk. I understand economics just fine.

And you didn't learn a damn thing. Take the course again or get a refund.

If a noble and worthwhile goal, then how come you don't support it?

I "support" anyone using emotion in an empathic sense. But when reason gives way to emotion (i.e things become unreasonable because our emotions suspend our ability to recognize facts, apply logic, utilize good science, and support truth), then we might as well allow the nearest eight-year-old to make our decisions for us.

I wasn't aware that allopathic doctors don't have emotions.

Me either.

Apparently another conservative fact that I wasn't aware of in my liberal (thought I'm really a moderate) ignorance.

Facts stand alone - they're neither conservative or liberal. And I would say that liberalism is most often a form of willful ignorance.

I think what you meant was that we need some hospital administrators watching the bottom line.

You know, Germany seems pretty prosperous. Yes, I know we helped bail them out after WWII, but they have a form of socialism. So do a lot of other countries that all enjoy very high standards of living like Norway, Denmark, Finland, England, etc.

Let's save this for another day.

You know, it takes a really long time to respond to arguments point by point like this. You better not be a troll. Eh, even if you are, it helps pass the time waiting for schools.

I'm game, if you are. I'll be very clear about this: good luck re: med school.

And remember to take the test!

 

[Mothra]

Hmm, actually I responded directly to your arguments. And I didn't call you names, I said your tone was condescending and you come across as patronizing and arrogant. I don't know you, but I know what I read. I find it amusing that you turn this into a liberals vs. conservatives argument. I would say you're the one changing the subject. I stand by everything I posted, which, by the way, is factual (I guess I do have the audacity to fight back with facts). Let's see you post evidence for your argument that socialized healthcare always fails, since I posted evidence to support the opposing argument. You're the one on defense now.

Take the test!

 

[Mothra]

Here is a good comparison between the US and Canadian health systems, which basically concludes that neither is better. That at least refutes your claim that "socialized anything has always been a failure.":
http://www.answers.com/topic/canadian-and-american-health-care-systems-compared

A quote from above:
"While Canada’s health system is cheaper, it compares well with the American one statistically. Life expectancy in 2002 was about two and a half years lower in the United States than Canada. With Canadians living to an average of 79.8 years and Americans 77.3. Infant and child mortality rates are also markedly higher in the United States.

When comparisons of public satisfaction are made between the two nations' health care systems, the numbers for Canadians and insured Americans are almost identical. This holds true in average annual doctor's visits. While a good number of Canadians complained that they were unable to receive treatment due to long wait lists, overall Canadians had no greater number of people unable to receive treatment than insured Americans.

A much greater difference was seen, however, between uninsured Americans and Canadians. Overall the uninsured group was much less satisfied, less likely to have seen a doctor, and more likely to have been unable to receive desired care than both Canadians and insured Americans. This leads to numbers somewhat lower for Americans."

I will now completely dismantle your argument. For your convenience, I will repeat my original statement:

"... Socialized anything has always been a failure because it always leads to shortages. Always leads to shortages. Always always always. Just ask the British, the Canadians, and anyone from the former Eastern bloc. Shortages are part of that flawed system. Providers make less, too. So everybody loses: patients, providers.... wait a minute - the government doesn't lose, does it? It gains power! The power to decide everything, ultimately - who gets what treatment when, who gets paid for doing what service... regulations, laws, countless bureacrats, forms...."​

I said socialized medicine is a failure because it always leads to shortages. Your Wikipedia source (on online encyclopedia I'm sure is constantly quoted by the NEJOM) dresses up that well-known fact:

"While a good number of Canadians complained that they were unable to receive treatment due to long wait lists, overall Canadians had no greater number of people unable to receive treatment than insured Americans."​

But look again! I'd be willing to bet the author meant to imply frequency - not percentage or proportion, or he/she/they would have said percentage/proportion/ratio/whatever. So here's the flaw: if basically the same number of people experienced delays in treatment in Canada as in the U.S., are the two health care systems "equal" in that respect? It's a resounding NO!!!!!! Why? Because there are between 9 and 10 times as many people in the U.S. as in Canada. You proved my first point.

I then said "Providers make less, too." Your article says the following:

"Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, all of whom are paid higher salaries south of the border. In Canada billing rates for each procedure are set through negotiations between the provincial governments and the physicians' organizations. In the United States the free market determines the rates, but with some significant influence from the large insurance companies. This leads to much higher salaries in the United States."​

Congratulations, you proved my second point.

Canadian providers would agree with me, too. Again, from your article:

"One effect of this is a brain drain whereby skilled doctors and nurses, who have trained in Canada partially at the taxpayer's expense, emigrate to the United States to pursue higher salaries. In part due to this problem, Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the United States there were 2.8 doctors per 1000 people in 1998 while in Canada only 2.1."​

I guess Canadian providers don't agree with you either - instead, they're voting with their feet.

My point that government gains power is uncontested.

In summary, your article proves nothing; it only confirms what I have said. Each and every one of my points still stand unchallenged.

Now, I address your point concerning uninsured Americans. For that, I ask you to take the test I posted earlier in this thread. (Because question #1 was written for the benefit of another SDN user, you may skip it, or consider it a bonus question.) Post your answers here on this thread. You cede this final point if you do not. Some useful information that would help you with the test is located here.

Finally - a suggestion. I've baited you with one of my arguments: it appears to have a flaw. But a little research will reveal the flaw to be meaningless. Take your time before you pounce.

Remember: think it through. Resist the irrational demogoguery of the radical left. Think for yourself.

 

[Ross434]

Mothra, you've made like 13 posts on this thread.. haha. keep it up, though, they're great.

 

[Code Brown]

Yeah, I agree. Also, there's actually a big difference in lifestyle capabilities between mid-80's and 140's etc.

Imagine what the difference will be between the 140's and the 200's.

Btw, this is a weird thread. Two completely different things going on at once.

 

[tigress]

Mothra, why on earth would I want to take this silly "test" you designed, as if I need you to educate me? I don't really care what you think; it's obvious nothing I say will change that, and nothing you say is going to change what I think. If you think it's a game and I cede this point to you by not answering, fine by me. Personally I don't need any ego boosts and you're wasting my time.

 

[Mothra]

Mothra, you've made like 13 posts on this thread.. haha. keep it up, though, they're great.

14!

Just trying to educate my fellow man... errr... persons.

The tax thing is just one little part of the picture. Anybody that's ever been self-employed or owned a business is at least a closet conservative if not an outright conservative. Taking over half of someone's income by government fiat is just plain stealing.

I firmly believe that if the science of economics were taught at every grade level from middle school through high school, there would be no Democrat Party in twenty years, and the Republican party would be very different (i.e. vastly improved) - a good thing for Americans and for the rest of the world.

And I mean the science of economics, not the Keynsian/normative garbage. I mean the science that explains why socialism in all of its forms eventually fails if not propped up by armies or prison systems. (Of course, it explains a lot of other things, too.)

 

[Mothra]

Mothra, why on earth would I want to take this silly "test" you designed, as if I need you to educate me? I don't really care what you think; it's obvious nothing I say will change that, and nothing you say is going to change what I think. If you think it's a game and I cede this point to you by not answering, fine by me. Personally I don't need any ego boosts and you're wasting my time.

Hey, don't underestimate yourself. You might learn something in spite of your prejudices.

 

[tacrum43]

Mr. Mothra,

So, I decided not to do the point by point thing because it's been a long day and I don't feel like spending 20 minutes on this. However, you didn't adequate address the Iran Contra thing, I mean come on how could Reagan not have known?

Also, Bush did say that it is not out job to police the world. I'm sure you'll make an argument to the effect that it was forced upon us because of the danger of terrorism and the instability of the Middle East, but that's not true. Bush had to force it on most of the other countries in the world to either go along with him or at least not actively prevent him from attacking Iraq. And yes, I remember that Poland was on our side.

It was also simple for you to overlook the examples of where socialism has been working.

Furthermore, just because I didn't know what vitriolic meant doesn't mean I'm stupid and I hardly think that's something I should have learned in my econ class.

Kerry only changed his position on the war because Bush mislead the senators when they initially voted for it. Dean let out a celebratory yell one time, apparently that makes him a raving lunatic. It is stupid how people judge a person based on one action and make that their entire reason to dislike someone. I remember back in the day I was onboard the Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky bandwagon; good thing I got over the mob mentality conservatives have.

Guess that's about it for now. And to add some shred of relevance to the OP's points, I do think that anyone who is a doctor and working full time will make plenty of money. You might have to work for an HMO, but at least it's not a law firm. In addition, lets not forget that your spouse (who might also be a doctor) could be adding to your income.

 

[Mothra]

Mr. Mothra,

So, I decided not to do the point by point thing because it's been a long day and I don't feel like spending 20 minutes on this. However, you didn't adequate address the Iran Contra thing, I mean come on how could Reagan not have known?

There's an incredibly obvious answer - maybe they didn't tell him? Maybe they knew he'd stop the whole thing? Reagan was a man of principle. Ollie North, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be lacking in that department. You really think someone as profoundly honest as Reagan let that go unchallenged? There's no evidence of any of that. NONE. Walsh wanted to find something, anything. It never existed.

Also, Bush did say that it is not out job to police the world. I'm sure you'll make an argument to the effect that it was forced upon us because of the danger of terrorism and the instability of the Middle East, but that's not true.

I think after 9/11, the mood was "OK, enough is enough. You started it, we'll finish it" - which I applaud. A lot of terrorists have been "finished off" since them. It's better they have their 72 virgins elsewhere than an AK-47 here. BTW, Clinton did absolutely NOTHING. Bubba couldn't have cared less as long he had an intern or two hanging around.

Bush had to force it on most of the other countries in the world to either go along with him or at least not actively prevent him from attacking Iraq. And yes, I remember that Poland was on our side.

I think you could learn a few things from the Poles concerning freedom and socialism.

It was also simple for you to overlook the examples of where socialism has been working.

Name one.

Furthermore, just because I didn't know what vitriolic meant doesn't mean I'm stupid and I hardly think that's something I should have learned in my econ class.

Actually, I think it was you that attempted to question my choice of words. Anyway, "vitriolic" describes the typical liberal activist's attitude these days - "bitterly scathing". You can see first hand what vitriolic is whenever a liberal loses an election.

Kerry only changed his position on the war because Bush mislead the senators when they initially voted for it.

A list of ten major Kerry flip-flops was compiled by CBS News (that authoritave liberal source - until recently). There's plenty more, but I think they had to call a halt somewhere so their candidate would have a chance to win.

Dean let out a celebratory yell one time, apparently that makes him a raving lunatic. It is stupid how people judge a person based on one action and make that their entire reason to dislike someone.

Appearances and first impressions are pretty important. Howard Doom's lack of presence is eclipsed only by the barroom brawler Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

I remember back in the day I was onboard the Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky bandwagon; good thing I got over the mob mentality conservatives have.

I think Bubba Clinton and Ollie North would have been great cellmates. Too bad the statute of limitations had run out, or HilLiary maybe could have shared a celll with Martha Stewart.

Guess that's about it for now. And to add some shred of relevance to the OP's points, I do think that anyone who is a doctor and working full time will make plenty of money. You might have to work for an HMO, but at least it's not a law firm. In addition, lets not forget that your spouse (who might also be a doctor) could be adding to your income.

Fair enough.

 

[medicomel]

Now here is your budget (These numbers are fairly accurate):
Lease a 2005 BMW 745i - $1000 per month
Lease a 2005 Range Rover - $1000 per month (for the spouse)
$800,000 mortgage (this is a nice pad) - (30 year @ 6%) - $4700 per month
$200,000 in student loans (20 years @ 3%) - $1100 per month
Utilities (cable, phone, electricity) - $500 per month
Groceries - $700 per month

The sound of a hot nurse saying "Paging Dr. Wonderful, we need you in surgery STAT"- priceless

Honestly, if I were making that much I would put double to triple the amount of money towards paring down some of the school debt.

 

[Blade28]

come on. at the least, you'll be making $100k / year insurance and student loan payments included. fyi even $100k is a ton of cash. and you'll have an awesome job. and some other good stuff too.

there, that was pretty easy.

I agree.

 

[tacrum43]

The take-home test (see page 4 of this thread) was posted on 2/27/2004.

The results are in... Grades are as follows:

tacrum43: 0 (failure)
tigress: 0 (failure)​

I could make a stupid test for you to take too, but it wouldn't mean anything. A test I did pass was the admission test for MENSA.