Does admissions look down on you if you oppose UHC?

[GH253]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Do you sabotage your likelihood of acceptance if you take a hard line against universal healthcare during your med school interview? Would it be more profitable to pretend to support it just for the sake of getting in?

 

[DeadCactus]

If you bring it up, you're an idiot.

If they bring it up and you take a stance you don't believe in, they'll probably trip you up and you'll look like an idiot.

 

[GH253]

I wouldn't bring it up. I'd be worried that they would bring it up.

 

[Lukkie]

in the south, no

in a civilized state, yes

 

[DeadCactus]

I wouldn't bring it up. I'd be worried that they would bring it up.

Some people will hold an opinion against you. Most everyone will hold a lie against you...

 

[drizzt3117]

I wouldn't bring it up. I'd be worried that they would bring it up.

It depends how you do it... most likely you will get a question about "what do we do about the 40+ million uninsured?" You can easily come up with a good answer that doesn't support UHC... (increased funding for preventative care, community health centers, compensating physicians to work in underserved areas, etc) I wouldn't recommend telling the interviewer that the uninsured can go f themselves though.

 

[229141]

If you say no UHC they will think you're a conservative, and we all know conservatives are the most hated minority out there with our beloved socialist leader now in power hahaha

Just avoid the topic

 

[slight365]

Problems with UHC, that this forum doesn't address in the arguments:

-universal healthcare is good for people because of the many millions who don't have insurance. Did you put in your statement how you want to be selfless and help people and other crap like that? Most people say stuff like that.

-universal healthcare may or may not work out in the end, however, if you talk about objections to it, it's because you're greedy because you're supposed to help people and that's it.

 

[parhumn]

UHC is a big topic. I am assuming that it will come up during the interview, especially since they check to see your understanding of current events in medicine. I think it'll be fine to defend your position if you can back it up with a good reason. Furthermore, not everyone is for UHC.

 

[QuaerensIntelle]

Just don't say it at UCHICAgo whatever you do...that place scared me. My interviewer literally told me that if I wanted to get paid for working, I should go to a different school.

 

[Law2Doc]

It depends how you do it... most likely you will get a question about "what do we do about the 40+ million uninsured?" You can easily come up with a good answer that doesn't support UHC... (increased funding for preventative care, community health centers, compensating physicians to work in underserved areas, etc) I wouldn't recommend telling the interviewer that the uninsured can go f themselves though.

Agreed. Just bear in mind that most, if not all adcoms believe that UHC is probably on the horizon in some form, and most support it (although there are many who have strong views on the right and wrong way to do it). Realistically this is a problem that everybody agrees has to be fixed (just no agreement on how to do it) and so you lose points bigtime if you say the status quo should remain. But if you acknowledge the problem but have a "better" idea of how to deal with it, then sure, say that that's what you'd rather see happen.

 

[Andrew Dufresne]

Support your opinion well and you'll never be penalized for it.

 

[Mattabet]

Support your opinion well and you'll never be penalized for it.

Within reason, this is true. I think that if your opinion is mandatory heavy lifting for expectant mothers and HGH for all little league baseball players, that'd be a hard one to sell.

I'd be careful not to get stuck with semantics, and make your position clear. Obviously, there are a lot of smart people who can make a compelling argument against government interference in medicine, a single-payer system, et al. But is your argument really against UHC; ie, you believe that some people do not deserve health care? So if your argument is actually against a federal assumption of health care, make that argument, rather than to the notion of UHC per se.

It's an argument you could make, but you had better support it well. You don't want to come off as unfeeling or heartless, obviously.

 

[JJMrK]

Do you sabotage your likelihood of acceptance if you take a hard line against universal healthcare during your med school interview? Would it be more profitable to pretend to support it just for the sake of getting in?

Good question OP. I've actually been thinking about this also. The reality is that you might just have to play the game.

 

[Lukkie]

Good question OP. I've actually been thinking about this also. The reality is that you might just have to play the game.

yeah - don't even think about telling em about ron pauls health care "plan"

 

[Freezer]

when confronted with a 2 sided coin such as UHC, play it cool... don't directly pick a side, instead acknowledge the merits of both sides... that way you come off as being informed and well rounded rather than coming off as a closed minded fascist...

"UHC? Well I think it is a shame that we live in a society in which our quality of medical treatment is directly proportional to our salaries... land of equal opportunity? the economic environment we were BORN into automatically determines if our average life span will be 55 or 80... however, i believe the proponents of UHC fail to realize that we do not have the infrastructure to effectively develop such a program... we need more physicians and although we build more medical schools, we still havent done much to address the stagnant number of residency programs, nor have we addressed that medical students havent had sponsership under the Pell Grant since the Reagan administration... Yes, many believe our health care system has some very destructive flaws, including myself... but we cannot rush to replace our system with another that will crumble just as easily if not adequately thought out and planned... as physicians, it is in our best interests to never settle with what we have... we should constantly strive to obtain perfection... whether it be perfection in the contact we have with our patients, or perfection in the system that is established to protect them... our police dept, fire dept, and military are all examples of the successes of social programs... and i would love to live to see the day in which UHC becomes a viable alternative... however, history has shown us that we cannot spark any successful medical revolution if we blindly start signing bills into law without properly assessing the consequences"

 

[235009]

It depends how you do it... most likely you will get a question about "what do we do about the 40+ million uninsured?" You can easily come up with a good answer that doesn't support UHC... (increased funding for preventative care, community health centers, compensating physicians to work in underserved areas, etc) I wouldn't recommend telling the interviewer that the uninsured can go f themselves though.

none of these will decrease the number of uninsured though the middle one might marginally improve access to care but isn't particularly feasible

"UHC? Well I think it is a shame that we live in a society in which our quality of medical treatment is directly proportional to our salaries... land of equal opportunity? the economic environment we were BORN into automatically determines if our average life span will be 55 or 80... however, i believe the proponents of UHC fail to realize that we do not have the infrastructure to effectively develop such a program... we need more physicians and although we build more medical schools, we still havent done much to address the stagnant number of residency programs, nor have we addressed that medical students havent had sponsership under the Pell Grant since the Reagan administration... Yes, many believe our health care system has some very destructive flaws, including myself... but we cannot rush to replace our system with another that will crumble just as easily if not adequately thought out and planned... as physicians, it is in our best interests to never settle with what we have... we should constantly strive to obtain perfection... whether it be perfection in the contact we have with our patients, or perfection in the system that is established to protect them... our police dept, fire dept, and military are all examples of the successes of social programs... and i would love to live to see the day in which UHC becomes a viable alternative... however, history has shown us that we cannot spark any successful medical revolution if we blindly start signing bills into law without properly assessing the consequences"

the bolded part is not only wrong but it shows that you have a very narrow view of the world ....otherwise the rest of your response is decent at best

 

[mmmcdowe]

I would try to focus on Equal Access to Healthcare, which you can readily support without believing in free health care for all. Someone will probably stomp me and say that they are the same thing, but let's face it. The rich will always pay more, and I believe they should honestly.

 

[Lukkie]

I would try to focus on Equal Access to Healthcare, which you can readily support without believing in free health care for all. Someone will probably stomp me and say that they are the same thing, but let's face it. The rich will always pay more, and I believe they should honestly.

and the best part - the essential father of capitalism and laissez-faire economics, Adam Smith, agrees 😀

 

[JJMrK]

none of these will decrease the number of uninsured though the middle one might marginally improve access to care but isn't particularly feasible



the bolded part is not only wrong but it shows that you have a very narrow view of the world ....otherwise the rest of your response is decent at best

There's always one in every crowd who wants to turn everything into a debate.

 

[drizzt3117]

none of these will decrease the number of uninsured though the middle one might marginally improve access to care but isn't particularly feasible

I didn't say it would, it's still an answer to the question that doesn't support UHC.

 

[235009]

There's always one in every crowd who wants to turn everything into a debate.

i don't want to debate anyone, especially not on SDN...just pointing out the problems with a couple of suggested answers

 

[mmmcdowe]

and the best part - the essential father of capitalism and laissez-faire economics, Adam Smith, agrees 😀

Oh didn't I mention? Adam Smith wrote me a LOR.

For me at least, those who reap the greatest benefits should WANT to do more to support their country and system that helped them succeed.

 

[Lukkie]

Oh didn't I mention? Adam Smith wrote me a LOR.

For me at least, those who reap the greatest benefits should WANT to do more to support their country and system that helped them succeed.

i bow down to your LOR 😀

as for your second statement, here is our good friend WARREN BUFFET:

"The free market's the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use ... The government isn't particularly good at doing that. But the market isn't so good at make sure that the wealth that's produced is being distributed fairly and wisely. Some of that wealth has to be ploughed back into education, so that the next generation has a fair chance, and to maintain our infrastructure, and to provide some sort of safety net for those who lose out in a market economy. And it just makes sense that those of us who've benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share."

 

[Freezer]

none of these will decrease the number of uninsured though the middle one might marginally improve access to care but isn't particularly feasible



the bolded part is not only wrong but it shows that you have a very narrow view of the world ....otherwise the rest of your response is decent at best

dont get me wrong... i am 100% for UHC... i was just trying to form an argument that highlighted both sides... wrong or narrowminded it may be... instead of throwing words around, please correct me with facts... something substantial... because even though i am 100% for UHC, i havent heard an effective arguement that countered these statements...

 

[235009]

dont get me wrong... i am 100% for UHC... i was just trying to form an argument that highlighted both sides... wrong or narrowminded it may be... instead of throwing words around, please correct me with facts... something substantial... because even though i am 100% for UHC, i havent heard an effective arguement that countered these statements...

i told you i'm not here to debate with anyone ....i could tell you are pro UHC because it was obvious you didn't know the other side of the argument at all. i would suggest you get a good idea of why we have the health insurance system we have now, why it would be extremely difficult or almost impossible to change to a government sponsored single payer healthcare system (i'm assuming thats what you all mean when you say "UHC") and you should also look into the different universal healthcare models....canada, the UK and germany all have different models and you should have at least a cursury understanding of all three so you can come up with a basic outline of what would be feasible in the US and why we'll never have a system like the one in the UK.

 

[circulus vitios]

It depends how you do it... most likely you will get a question about "what do we do about the 40+ million uninsured?" You can easily come up with a good answer that doesn't support UHC... (increased funding for preventative care, community health centers, compensating physicians to work in underserved areas, etc) I wouldn't recommend telling the interviewer that the uninsured can go f themselves though.

Aren't most of those 40 million illegal aliens?

 

[Kaustikos]

you could just fillibuster your way out

 

[WaterBird]

Aren't most of those 40 million illegal aliens?

No

 

[circulus vitios]

No

http://newsbusters.org/stories/40-million-uninsured-myth
http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=134

 

[Keona]

The 40 million uninsured are not illegal aliens. My mother-in-law doesn't have health insurance right now, because she can no longer work. She hasn't been to a physician in over a year, which is very dangerous due to some of her health conditions. She has worked for years, and isn't one of those people sitting around doing nothing for their entire lives. We need something available for people with pre-existing conditions so that they do not have to decide between paying their bills or having health insurance.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The 40 million uninsured are not illegal aliens. My mother-in-law doesn't have health insurance right now, because she can no longer work. She hasn't been to a physician in over a year, which is very dangerous due to some of her health conditions. She has worked for years, and isn't one of those people sitting around doing nothing for their entire lives. We need something available for people with pre-existing conditions so that they do not have to decide between paying their bills or having health insurance.

That sucks. I'm not up to date on the details of the proposals for UHC, but something should be done to get health care to people who work.

 

[witness23]

http://newsbusters.org/stories/40-million-uninsured-myth
http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=134

not to be a douchebag, but the articles you cited negates your original point that MOST of the 40 million are illegal immigrants right? I mean there are at most 12-13 million illegal immigrants in the country...

 

[Freezer]

i told you i'm not here to debate with anyone ....i could tell you are pro UHC because it was obvious you didn't know the other side of the argument at all. i would suggest you get a good idea of why we have the health insurance system we have now, why it would be extremely difficult or almost impossible to change to a government sponsored single payer healthcare system (i'm assuming thats what you all mean when you say "UHC") and you should also look into the different universal healthcare models....canada, the UK and germany all have different models and you should have at least a cursury understanding of all three so you can come up with a basic outline of what would be feasible in the US and why we'll never have a system like the one in the UK.

1. dont give me that "i didnt come on here to debate" line... you came at my reply as though the personification of UHC killed your family... this isnt guerrilla warfare... this is a discussion... dont hit and run... own your ****...

2. my original post was in response to the original question "how do you handle a question regarding your support of UHC?"... all i was saying in my post was that you should formulate a response that stated 2 sides to the arguement so instead of showing that you lean one way or another, you are open to discuss both aisles of an issue... a safe way of deflecting a potentially explosive question when you do not fully know your audience...

3. cursory understanding? i was writing a short one paragraph example of how to safely respond to a heated question... not a thesis on models of healthcare... and lay off the negative language... if you keep taking yourself that seriously and you'll have a heart attack before your 40...

with that said... i will look into the various health system models you mentioned as well as the implications of imposing these models on the US... it should be a good read and i thank you for your input...

 

[witness23]

I have come across interviewers who had family members that were not insured or had illnesses that didn't fall under insurances (mental health is sometimes a big one - anorexia, etc).

again, everyone understands that if you randomly implement UHC it might throw a lot of things off and hurt the quality of care. There are different ways of reasoning and saying things. Just come across compassionate and logical - make sure you know what you are talking about though.

ALSO. That number of uninsured is actually around 40 million. F&ck what you think. thats what the adcom thinks if he/she asks you a question on it. Go to the interview feedback page. Its a question often asked.

 

[el aye]

I was asked during my interview in September what I thought of Obama's/Hillary's health care plan.

 

[circulus vitios]

not to be a douchebag, but the articles you cited negates your original point that MOST of the 40 million are illegal immigrants right? I mean there are at most 12-13 million illegal immigrants in the country...

Don't get me wrong, going uninsured against your will is horrible, but I don't believe that ALL 40 million are uninsured against their will. I would like to see accurate data.

 

[witness23]

Don't get me wrong, going uninsured against your will is horrible, but I don't believe that ALL 40 million are uninsured against their will. I would like to see accurate data.

I agree.

 

[n618ft]

in the south, no

in a civilized state, yes

By civilized you mean socialist-pig states?

 

[circulus vitios]

By civilized you mean socialist-pig states?

I don't really understand how wanting UHC = civilized, either.

 

[235009]

1. dont give me that "i didnt come on here to debate" line... you came at my reply as though the personification of UHC killed your family... this isnt guerrilla warfare... this is a discussion... dont hit and run... own your ****...

2. my original post was in response to the original question "how do you handle a question regarding your support of UHC?"... all i was saying in my post was that you should formulate a response that stated 2 sides to the arguement so instead of showing that you lean one way or another, you are open to discuss both aisles of an issue... a safe way of deflecting a potentially explosive question when you do not fully know your audience...

3. cursory understanding? i was writing a short one paragraph example of how to safely respond to a heated question... not a thesis on models of healthcare... and lay off the negative language... if you keep taking yourself that seriously and you'll have a heart attack before your 40...

with that said... i will look into the various health system models you mentioned as well as the implications of imposing these models on the US... it should be a good read and i thank you for your input...

1. the main reason i didn't come here to debate is because this is an internet forum (i.e. a huge **** show) and because we actually AGREE...however i know why a single payer system wouldn't work in the US and you need to do some more research. if you want my take on it i'll give it to you briefly: i think one feasible idea is for the government to step into the market and compete with the private companies, in effect pulling the price of insurance down while at the same time heavily subsidizing changes to the healthcare system that will cut costs...while health insurance will still be tied to employment, individuals would be able to buy into the government health insurance plan which would have a huge risk pool and be able to negotiate better drug prices etc. However, i doubt a plan like this would work unless medicaid is expanded and there is some sort of tax penalty on people who make enough but forego buying insurance. It's a very complex problem and i'm sure the solution i stated has many holes in it but i think the first step is to realize that a single payer system won't happen and a government health insurance system (like canada's) won't happen either.

2. i agree with your approach i was just saying that you need to actually know what the argument for the other side is or else it is very transparant that you are just trying to hide what you think by giving them a politically correct response

3. calm down

Don't get me wrong, going uninsured against your will is horrible, but I don't believe that ALL 40 million are uninsured against their will. I would like to see accurate data.

the problem isn't only being "insured against your will" ...those people who can supposedly "afford" to buy insurance and choose not to are also a huge problem because the taxpayer is eventually shouldering the burden for their healthcare costs! Part of the reason for a government is to protect the majority from the minority's stupidity and greed ....a good example of them failing to do that is the current banking crisis.

 

[circulus vitios]

the problem isn't only being "insured against your will" ...those people who can supposedly "afford" to buy insurance and choose not to are also a huge problem because the taxpayer is eventually shouldering the burden for their healthcare costs! Part of the reason for a government is to protect the majority from the minority's stupidity and greed ....a good example of them failing to do that is the current banking crisis.

I have no sympathy for adults who have affordable health insurance readily available, but simply choose not to use it. You get into a car accident and owe $20k in hospital bills? Tough ****, buddy. You should have thought about that before passing up health insurance so you can buy an iPhone. Garner their wages or throw them into forced labor camps. I'm sick and tired of the government doing away with personal responsibility. The government/state absolutely 100% should not absorb medical debts for adults who can afford health insurance, while at the same time punishing everyone who pays for their health care (either through raising taxes or upping health care inflation).

 

[shiftingmirage]

There are certain things one never discusses in an interview, medical or otherwise. Politics is one of those things. They wont bring it up, so as long as you don't, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

If they bring it up, lie. Just think to yourself "what would an illogical hippy say?", and BAM, you'll have your answer.

No matter what the cost, or the consequences, we must have universal health care for all. Don't forget it and you'll be fine.

 

[235009]

I have no sympathy for adults who have affordable health insurance readily available, but simply choose not to use it. You get into a car accident and owe $20k in hospital bills? Tough ****, buddy. You should have thought about that before passing up health insurance so you can buy an iPhone. Garner their wages or throw them into forced labor camps. I'm sick and tired of the government doing away with personal responsibility. The government/state absolutely 100% should not absorb medical debts for adults who can afford health insurance, while at the same time punishing everyone who pays for their health care (either through raising taxes or upping health care inflation).

THIS is exactly why i don't want to discuss or debate this on SDN....this guy obviously has no clue what he's talking about. lemme give you a scenario:

the uninsured guy you mentioned gets into a car accident and is rushed to the hospital where he racks up $20k in treatment. The hospital then sends him a bill and he says he can't pay it and maybe settles his debt for like $5k or something because the hospital knows they won't get more out of him. the hospital then has to eat the other $15k. and of course since the hospital is a business they have to make up that difference somewhere else so they raise reimbursement on other things etc. Since medicare is the largest payer they are hardest hit and private insurance companies have to maintain their bottom line so they raise premiums....which all means that you just paid for uninsured man's medical care through higher premiums and with your taxes.

so how do YOU suggest we solve this scenario. check peoples' insurance at the door of the ER and dump them on the street if they don't have any?

 

[circulus vitios]

THIS is exactly why i don't want to discuss or debate this on SDN....this guy obviously has no clue what he's talking about. lemme give you a scenario:

the uninsured guy you mentioned gets into a car accident and is rushed to the hospital where he racks up $20k in treatment. The hospital then sends him a bill and he says he can't pay it and maybe settles his debt for like $5k or something because the hospital knows they won't get more out of him. the hospital then has to eat the other $15k. and of course since the hospital is a business they have to make up that difference somewhere else so they raise reimbursement on other things etc. Since medicare is the largest payer they are hardest hit and private insurance companies have to maintain their bottom line so they raise premiums....which all means that you just paid for uninsured man's medical care through higher premiums and with your taxes.

so how do YOU suggest we solve this scenario. check peoples' insurance at the door of the ER and dump them on the street if they don't have any?

Somehow fix Medicare and let the government compete with private insurance groups. Require that everyone has health insurance. If you still want to go without health care, you must proactively agree to pay the hospital for any and all emergency or non emergency care, or you won't get health care at all.

 

[FlaMedic]

Don't forget to mention that any argument about UHC/single payor is completely irrelevant because the Obama administration has proprosed nothing even close to this.

This topic is just something the right uses to hate on anyone who thinks differently than they do.

 

[Eklipse113]

I like to think of the UHC question as a sort of guillotine. If you get captured with an interviewer who has an opposite viewpoint and isn't mature enoguh to accept yours (Sounds like 1700s France to me) you're going to be beheaded. 50/50 as far as getting one who has your viewpoint...

I hate that question SO much 😡

 

[Lukkie]

I like to think of the UHC question as a sort of guillotine. If you get captured with an interviewer who has an opposite viewpoint and isn't mature enoguh to accept yours (Sounds like 1700s France to me) you're going to be beheaded. 50/50 as far as getting one who has your viewpoint...

I hate that question SO much 😡

...this process is SOOOOOO random!!!!! 😡 😡 😡

 

[scarletgirl777]

I like to think of the UHC question as a sort of guillotine. If you get captured with an interviewer who has an opposite viewpoint and isn't mature enoguh to accept yours (Sounds like 1700s France to me) you're going to be beheaded. 50/50 as far as getting one who has your viewpoint...

I hate that question SO much 😡

I disagree. I have been interviewed by people who had different opinions from me about sociopolitical stuff that came out in our conversations, and I still got accepted. I guess part of it is that from meeting me and reading my application, it's pretty easy to tell who I voted for and so some of my opinions may not be surprise 😛 but as long as you are respectful of their opinion, show you have considered the main points of the other side prior to coming up with your own position, and actively listen to and consider their rebuttals, you're good to go.