I was wondering if we should take a stand on the health care reform question if it comes up during our interview. What if your interviewer is a strong supporter of the side you're not taking? Should we just give both sides of the argument and leave it at that?
Health Care Reform question during interview
- Thread starter sweeteepy
- Start date
agreed. This could be very interesting.
probably not the way to answer this (but a valid point)
generally, i believe if reform is enacted, the majority of doctors will become government workers (not good!). we will work longer and become paid less due to a dramatic decrease in payment for treatment (just ask a doctor with medicare/medicaid patients). therefore, if you would like to make a generous living and you are not a government doctor, you must work longer days in order to see more patients. the upside to being a government doctor is that you will receive good (not great) benefits and won't have to offer health care for your employees. You will also (most likely) receive a pension plan. the downside is that you will probably never make the amount of money a private practice doctor does now.
probably the way to answer this in an interview
if everyone has health care, then i can serve more patients and increase the general oral health of the public.
in all honesty, we all go into dentistry knowing that we will all make a very decent living and control all aspects of our own practice. health care reform may very well change the core "selfish" aspects of dentistry (perhaps not in a good way!), but at the same time enhance why we all should be in practice (to serve our patients).
probably not the way to answer this (but a valid point)
generally, i believe if reform is enacted, the majority of doctors will become government workers (not good!). we will work longer and become paid less due to a dramatic decrease in payment for treatment (just ask a doctor with medicare/medicaid patients). therefore, if you would like to make a generous living and you are not a government doctor, you must work longer days in order to see more patients. the upside to being a government doctor is that you will receive good (not great) benefits and won't have to offer health care for your employees. You will also (most likely) receive a pension plan. the downside is that you will probably never make the amount of money a private practice doctor does now.
probably the way to answer this in an interview
if everyone has health care, then i can serve more patients and increase the general oral health of the public.
in all honesty, we all go into dentistry knowing that we will all make a very decent living and control all aspects of our own practice. health care reform may very well change the core "selfish" aspects of dentistry (perhaps not in a good way!), but at the same time enhance why we all should be in practice (to serve our patients).
I would say, and probably will say, that I think everyone in this country should have access to quality and affordable healthcare. On the other hand, I don't believe that the solution to make health care a government controlled entity, as it will just create more problems and I believe it isn't something that the government should have control of according to the way our country was set up.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
I lived in Europe for a while. Their healthcare system is government-based, and I have to say, it's a lot better than what we have. Over there, EVERYONE has access to healthcare and education at (basically) no cost. Doctors do just fine over there, as do dentists. In fact, I had a dentist office in my apartment building...go figure.
We have it all backwards over here...we throw a price tag on anything we possibly can. The problem with healthcare is that there is no competition among providers. When you buy a car, someone will offer you one price, and if they don't come down, you can always go to someone else for the sale. You don't NEED the car--you have a bargaining chip. But the doctors and insurance companies know you won't say "Well, I don't need this open-heart surgery, so I'll try to find someone that'll do it for less." No. They know you won't bargain when it comes to your life.
Everyone deserves quality healthcare...it's a right as a human being. Reform is something we need in this country. It might be rocky at first, but that's because we're so used to the greedy, "if it makes money, it must be ok" approach we have right now. Give it time...a healthy society means less poverty, less crime, and an overall higher standard of living for everyone.
I'll be the first to admit that no one needs to earn $200,000 a year (unless the price of bread goes up to $1000 per loaf).
We have it all backwards over here...we throw a price tag on anything we possibly can. The problem with healthcare is that there is no competition among providers. When you buy a car, someone will offer you one price, and if they don't come down, you can always go to someone else for the sale. You don't NEED the car--you have a bargaining chip. But the doctors and insurance companies know you won't say "Well, I don't need this open-heart surgery, so I'll try to find someone that'll do it for less." No. They know you won't bargain when it comes to your life.
Everyone deserves quality healthcare...it's a right as a human being. Reform is something we need in this country. It might be rocky at first, but that's because we're so used to the greedy, "if it makes money, it must be ok" approach we have right now. Give it time...a healthy society means less poverty, less crime, and an overall higher standard of living for everyone.
I'll be the first to admit that no one needs to earn $200,000 a year (unless the price of bread goes up to $1000 per loaf).
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 1
I'd hope they wouldn't ask about it. It's a huge, controversial political issue that people on all sides feel strongly about. As with any other controversial issue, some people on one side tend to have strong negative feelings about the people on the other side. If you BS some noncommittal answer, it could look bad for you. If you tell the truth, you risk pissing off the interviewers if they happen to have hold the opposite viewpoint. I guess your best bet is to say something like "I support whichever type of system provides the best quality of care as many people as possible," but it sounds like such a canned response. I'm really not sure how I'd deal with it.
In Palmetto914's case, perhaps personal experience can be used to state your views, but there is still a risk--at the end of the day you are looking to get in, and the adcoms member has the high ground.
I was told med students come across healthcare questions more often than dstudents, but with the political atmosphere, i wouldn't be surprised if this came up.
It would probably be best to see if any dstudents experienced this scenario; and the outcome...
Perhaps staying neutral is the best?
That is a highly volatile statement. In fact try searching or posting it in the med/dental residency forums and see what happens 😛
I was told med students come across healthcare questions more often than dstudents, but with the political atmosphere, i wouldn't be surprised if this came up.
It would probably be best to see if any dstudents experienced this scenario; and the outcome...
Perhaps staying neutral is the best?
That is a highly volatile statement. In fact try searching or posting it in the med/dental residency forums and see what happens 😛
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 2
I know there is a risk in arguing your point (assuming it is different than that of the interviewer's). However, whatever Palmetto said --- shows passion for his/her work and for a better world.
In the end, it is not the political aspect of it that he is supporting or not supporting. it is a very thoughtful and caring perspective. And I think that is very important to convey to the interviewer - to show them that you have a heart.😍
In the end, it is not the political aspect of it that he is supporting or not supporting. it is a very thoughtful and caring perspective. And I think that is very important to convey to the interviewer - to show them that you have a heart.😍
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 275
- Reaction score
- 1
fixed that for you
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
Reading this article, I believe, would help if it does come up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
I like the Swiss system.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
I like the Swiss system.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
I get your point, but really, if you do the math, $200,000 is a MASSIVE amount of money. I guess I should clarify my above statement...No one NEEDS $200k, and I would gladly earn less if it meant solid healthcare coverage for all.
I just read a study the ADA published regarding avg. income of dentists that own their own practice...it was $224,000 and some change...NET! Just for perspective, I make $60k a year right now, swinging $700 in student loans per month, health insurance, savings, 401k, wife and kid, and I still have plenty of play money each month after all the bills are paid. It's just a matter of not having the typical "keeping of with the Jones'" perspective...
That being said, the cost of a dental education requires that we make at least enough to cover those loans and live comfortably. $200k would allow us to live VERY comfortably.
Regarding the above comment on coming from the heart, yes, I think that's the best way to answer such a question. Leave the politics and "us vs. them" comments out of it. I definitely think it's important for all of us to have somewhat of an educated opinion on the matter, and I would think all schools would expect you to have an opinion (you are hoping to be a dentist, afterall).
I was fortunate enough to see other systems, first-hand. I'm sure there are other people on these boards that have had even more experience with it. Sound off, people! This type of discussion can help all of us (along with our own research) form educated opinions on the matter...Hey, maybe someone might come up with the answer!
Unfortunately the salary is part of what makes the career worth it. I love dentistry, and if the salary was much less I would still want to be a dentist, but there is no way in hell I would pay 200k to go to school another 4 years, along with the 5k just to get into a school (apps and what not) That isn't even taking into account how much work I put in undergrad, compared to people who are drinking 5 nights a week and then graduate and get a 70k job out of college, while i'm still LOSING money for at least four more years. If the salary was closer to what they were getting, I feel like I would opt for the easier and quicker route, because there are other careers that interest me , although not as much as dentistry.
It is simply the product of our economic system, same reason why athletes make millions for doing what little kids would do for free.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Yup, unfortunately our economy does lend itself to ensuring there is always a poor and a high class.
Don't get me wrong, by no means am I saying health professionals shouldn't be compensated for their hard work and extra schooling. If the cost of education would go way down to that of europe for every profession, then everyone could have the same quality of life they have now for less $$. Just imagine how it would feel if you didn't have to worry about costs when you were diagnosed with cancer, or worry about funding your child's education! That's a lot less stress in life...
I agree with you, but especially now, the way the economy is, people are not going to part with a comfortable living very willingly when all we hear about on the news is how money is tight and jobs are scarce. i also don't think that increasing the scope of the government is the answer, as well as adding 1 trillion dollars to the national debt.
The other thing is, compared with a cancer treatment or with some new drug, dental care is not too expensive, and is easier to prevent. Whereas you can do nothing to prevent cancer (certain kinds), if you brush, floss, and use Listerine consistently and avoid sugary foods, you can greatly cut down your chances of being forced to undergo an expensive dental surgery or procedure
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 73
if it comes up during the interview, talk about access to healthcare being a serious issue today but stay away from the politics. a dental school interview is a poor place to take this stand, especially when the guy who just asked you is prepared to say what he has to about the situation. its an ambush question, so talk about the patients best interest / improving access to care, but stay away from politically implicating yourself on either side, its not the time or place.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
That is a good point. Which is why I think dentistry will most likely not be directly included in a healthcare reform.
Although studies are showing more and more that dentists can be pivotal in recognizing a lot of warning signs to some serious health conditions...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 275
- Reaction score
- 1
I wasn't trying to be a dick palmetto, I just don't like people saying what other people "need" as if they are talking from a point of moral superiority. You could say no one needs 50K or you could say no one needs 800K and my argument would still be the same.
this
this
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 2
i thought this post is meant to help us in case healthcare does pop up in our interview.
everyone will have their opinion, thats just how it is going to be. and it is good to see as many perspectives as possible - its a good heads up on what to expect at the interview
i think anyone who is able to convey their side of the argument without getting defensive and providing a good explanation why they think so shouldnt get hurt in an interview.
everyone will have their opinion, thats just how it is going to be. and it is good to see as many perspectives as possible - its a good heads up on what to expect at the interview
i think anyone who is able to convey their side of the argument without getting defensive and providing a good explanation why they think so shouldnt get hurt in an interview.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Denner, I didn't think you were, which why I said I get your point.
Icedspice, I agree. It is important if and when one is asked that question that is can be answered with a well-thought response...not a defensive rant. I'm hoping this thread will inspire people to form an educated opinion...except for those applying to the same schools as me, of course...haha
Icedspice, I agree. It is important if and when one is asked that question that is can be answered with a well-thought response...not a defensive rant. I'm hoping this thread will inspire people to form an educated opinion...except for those applying to the same schools as me, of course...haha
ok first of all, healthcare reform is NOT going to create less poverty and less crime. study about the mentalities and beliefs of poor people that keep them poor (i can comment on this, because i grew up poor). nor is healthcare reform going to reduce obesity. do some psychology readings on ownership. ever noticed how people take nice care of their cars and homes, but will trash parks and public restrooms? why? because they don't feel like they "own" them. anything that is handed to the public for "free" to them will be used and ABUSED. i get free checkups for cholesterol? pshh thats not going to stop me from eating 15 cheeseburgers a day. my kid gets free checkups for behavior disorders and free prescriptions? all right, i can do their medication and it won't cost me a thing (my mom works at a clinic and has seen people doing their kids medications before. why? because its free and cheaper than street drugs. sickening.)
i was reading a blog by a doctor the other day about a patient that they had in the hospital. the doctors were frantically running ALL kinds of tests on the patient and still could not figure out what was wrong. finally, the obese patient admitted that her family had been sneaking food into her at night. all the top medical treatment in the world, only to be beaten out by a box of oreas.
while saying "i think everyone should have access to every kind of medical care for basically free" may seem rosey, SOMEONE has to end up footing the bill. who wants to pay for the drunk's emergency room bill who just killed a family by driving drunk? because of course, he can't pay for it because all of his money goes to drugs.
are doctors going to want to work for the govt instead of themselves? NO. they want autonomy. they deserve autonomy. they work five times harder than most people in the US in school and deserve some respect. the government is all ready all over them as it is.
i realize you're a pre-dent, which means you probably haven't seen the way people abuse their bodies. or how they abuse medicaid. p.s. medicaid fraud costs us like $900,000 already. ALREADY. how much worse is this going to get with free healthcare? ugh.
andd i haven't even began to touch on things like access to care, allocation of LIMITED resources, etc.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Sorry stephie3, while you do raise some excellent points for discussion, my being "just a pre-dent" isn't relevant. I, too grew up poor. Most of my family works in healthcare, and I have been around it most of my life (both administrative and medical sides) so there is definitely more than just "rosey" feelings going into my comments.
I must say you seem to be confusing the healthcare system with the justice system. Yes, a drunk driver (while I have absolutely no tolerance for them) and drug addicts SHOULD get quality healthcare. It's not the job of medicine to pass judgement. While drunk driving is much less excusable, those addicted to drugs shouldn't be cast aside so quickly. There are many situations that drive people to drugs...we can't pretend everyone is given the same opportunities and spit on those that end up in the lower levels of society.
Look at the countries that are at the top of the list for lifespan, quality of life, etc...you'll find those countries do two things: provide excellent universal healthcare and (nearly) free education. You simply can't dismiss that!
I am not trying to turn this into a big debate (perhaps I already have), as I think this thread should be kept as more of a resource for thought, rather than a bunch of INTENSE arguing...we all know where this discussion could lead. So please, let's express our points-of-view in a calm manner...thanks.
I must say you seem to be confusing the healthcare system with the justice system. Yes, a drunk driver (while I have absolutely no tolerance for them) and drug addicts SHOULD get quality healthcare. It's not the job of medicine to pass judgement. While drunk driving is much less excusable, those addicted to drugs shouldn't be cast aside so quickly. There are many situations that drive people to drugs...we can't pretend everyone is given the same opportunities and spit on those that end up in the lower levels of society.
Look at the countries that are at the top of the list for lifespan, quality of life, etc...you'll find those countries do two things: provide excellent universal healthcare and (nearly) free education. You simply can't dismiss that!
I am not trying to turn this into a big debate (perhaps I already have), as I think this thread should be kept as more of a resource for thought, rather than a bunch of INTENSE arguing...we all know where this discussion could lead. So please, let's express our points-of-view in a calm manner...thanks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
I'd also like to add...
Why do people abuse the system? Is it because people are inherently bad? I think not. Raise the standard of living for these people, and you will see a decline in abuse. To simply dismiss them as bad people does nothing. Get to the root of the issue; think a little!
Why do people abuse the system? Is it because people are inherently bad? I think not. Raise the standard of living for these people, and you will see a decline in abuse. To simply dismiss them as bad people does nothing. Get to the root of the issue; think a little!
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,387
- Reaction score
- 5
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else
is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of
the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
* Adrian Rogers*
Unfortunately Palmetto, your attempt to help me formulate an "educated opinion" is in vain because I inherently believe in the above quote.
wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else
is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of
the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
* Adrian Rogers*
Unfortunately Palmetto, your attempt to help me formulate an "educated opinion" is in vain because I inherently believe in the above quote.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't agree with her tone of voice either, but I agree with much of her content. While the abstract concept of giving everybody free healthcare is appealing, I don't think government intervention is the way to achieve it.
When you make a broad statement like "everyone deserves access to healthcare," think about the ethical terms of what this actually means. If everyone deserves adequate healthcare because it's necessary to stay alive, wouldn't that requirement extend to other things? For example, don't you need food to stay alive? OK, so we give everyone free food. What about clothing? Surely you need clothing in the dead of winter. OK, we'll give clothes to everyone. How about a house to live in? A decent job to make a living? A free car to get to that job? You see where this is going. An extreme example, yes, but when we start to believe that we are entitled to things—entitled to things we don't even think about where they're coming from—then we're headed down a dangerous path.
Now, I do believe that there needs to be reform of some sort—the system of law set up in this country makes it impossible for a doctor to practice efficiently. Instead, doctors are forced to waste a tremendous amount of money to practice defensive medicine, where they run a million wasteful tests on a simple case, just because they're afraid of being sued later on for missing that ridiculously improbable diagnosis. Insurance companies are also at fault—they should not be able to cherry pick only healthy people to insure. There should be accountability.
But government run healthcare is not the way to reform the system—if anything, the government will create even more bureaucracy and more tax dollars will be wasted on administration funding. I especially hate the idea of forcing people to purchase healthcare—if they don't want to do it, then they don't have to. It is their choice. A stupid choice, perhaps- but is it still theirs to make. With that note, I am going to say that I'm not completely opposed to government programs: I think there should be some sort of healthcare set up for children, at the very least, because it is not their choice not to have healthcare (it's their negligent parents). You can say that countries like France and Canada and Sweden have great healthcare programs, but have you ever really investigated the other differences from their country and ours? There are considerable flaws in their systems as well, so be careful when making an overarching statement like that as well.
(Btw, most people get this wrong when quoting lifespan statistics. Yes, when you compare overall lifespan statistics between countries like Sweden and the US, then the Europeans seem to live a few years longer than Americans. BUT that's comparing the heavily Caucasian population of Sweden to the mixed ethnicities of the US, so it's not an equal match. Remember that the immigrant population of the US, especially those of African descent, tend to suffer from existing conditions of hypertension, anemia, etc. that lowers their expected lifespans. When you compare the lifespans of the white populations between both countries, they equalize-- which means your argument about the correlation between universal healthcare and lifespan is no good.)
To be honest, if you really looked, everyone can already get access to some sort of free or subsidized healthcare—most people eligible for Medicare or Medicaid aren't even signed up! People don't take advantage of the programs already available to them, and then complain that there isn't adequate help. Just look harder.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Ummm alanan, just because your quote doesn't agree with my view doesn't mean your opinion isn't educated. It's a good quote, even if there are parts of it that I do not agree with.
Wwdaffodils, I have lived in some of these countries for an extended period of time, and I've seen their systems first-hand! They work. And it's not because they have a bunch of white people. They work because the attitude of their general public is a lot different than that of the US. People pay higher taxes, sure, but you'll hardly hear (at least I never did) people say "that's not fair! Why should I pay for that drunk's healthcare?" Over here we get so caught up in the "I'm better than you...I make more money than you" crap, that we start seeing the poor as less than human. It's toxic.
Wwdaffodils, I have lived in some of these countries for an extended period of time, and I've seen their systems first-hand! They work. And it's not because they have a bunch of white people. They work because the attitude of their general public is a lot different than that of the US. People pay higher taxes, sure, but you'll hardly hear (at least I never did) people say "that's not fair! Why should I pay for that drunk's healthcare?" Over here we get so caught up in the "I'm better than you...I make more money than you" crap, that we start seeing the poor as less than human. It's toxic.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm not saying anything you're insinuating about "white people"- I was merely pointing out that your statistics were wrong.
I'm also not saying that the poor are less that human, or that they should ever be thought of that way. I'm talking about the sense of entitlement that we shouldn't have about healthcare. You're not entitled to it just because you're human. When you give someone free healthcare, you're taking away the time, effort, education, knowledge of others-- even kids know that its not right to take things from others without their permission. Should people have access to good healthcare? Sure, but the government has no right to force other people to give it.
I too have lived in France. But just because you've lived there doesn't make you an automatic expert on the system.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
ding ding ding we have a winner!!!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Daffodils, I never said I was an expert. But I would say living there for 4 years and actually being a patient a few times in that system (as well as close friends) gives me more than a leg to stand on.
I am insinuating nothing about the white race. You're the one that suggested europe was healthier because of all the white people (when, in fact, they do have a large eastern european and turkish population).
I'm sorry, but being human DOES entitle you to healthcare. To suggest otherwise is just inhumane. Where's your compassion and understanding for your fellow human? I don't understand how a person could be happy as a dentist with such a disregard for a large portion of humanity.
I am insinuating nothing about the white race. You're the one that suggested europe was healthier because of all the white people (when, in fact, they do have a large eastern european and turkish population).
I'm sorry, but being human DOES entitle you to healthcare. To suggest otherwise is just inhumane. Where's your compassion and understanding for your fellow human? I don't understand how a person could be happy as a dentist with such a disregard for a large portion of humanity.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 0
not trying to get involved, but come on. please don't let this thread get out of hand and ruin it for the rest of us who are learning something and finding this thread to be really interesting because you're offended by what someone may or may not be insinuating. can we please get back to hearing people's thoughts without it getting personal?
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Sorry if this came off as an attack. It wasn't meant to be.
But a healthy "discussion" does get out the thoughts. There are some great points/counterpoints going on here.
But a healthy "discussion" does get out the thoughts. There are some great points/counterpoints going on here.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 3
If you noticed, I specifically said Sweden. And Im not suggesting that Sweden is healthier because of all the white people. Im saying that Caucasians statistically have a longer expected lifespan, so when you compare Caucasian Europeans to all the varying races of Americans, youre not comparing apples to apples. That is merely a statement of fact. Unfortunately, many Americans of African descent will have a shorter lifespan because of genetic predispositions to chronic conditions like sickle cell anemia.
Ethically, I dont believe that we are automatically entitled to healthcare. You disagree, and Im OK with that. But please dont accuse me of not having compassion. I strongly believe that every doctor should do pro bono work whenever they can but doctors should never be forced to do so by the government or by anybody else.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
I get what you are trying to say, but I don't see how anyone can be compassionate and say that not everyone deserves quality healthcare. Drunks, drug addicts, criminals--we can't generalize and say they're all bad people and deserve to be left to die. Doctors are already forced to treat patients that come into the ER. They must provide care to the drunk driver as well as the family he/she hit in the other car.
Just as we don't debate paying taxes for police protection, fire departments, courts, etc., we shouldn't debate healthcare coverage and AT LEAST a bachelors-level education. Not all of us will ever need the fire dept. or a police officer, but we still pay for it without question. Healthcare should be the same way. People will still have every right to not go to the doctor (just as those that don't use the police dept. or the courts), but the people that do choose care will have it available to them, regardless of how much money they make.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 3
To answer the initial question: try to stay neutral in politics part of it, but make sure to let them know you care about people and will vote for whatever system that makes health care more accessible.
I lived in Europe most of my life (17 years). I was born and raised there. Free education and free healthcare provided by the government sound very tempting, I agree. But it is very tricky to achieve the best (or, at least, above average) quality of care and education in such a system. Whoever is designing the new system must spend years and years and years making sure it doesn't go wrong, because there are so many possible drawbacks to it... imho.
And, on a side note, people are inherently bad. Otherwise, socialism and communism would have been the best systems out there.
I lived in Europe most of my life (17 years). I was born and raised there. Free education and free healthcare provided by the government sound very tempting, I agree. But it is very tricky to achieve the best (or, at least, above average) quality of care and education in such a system. Whoever is designing the new system must spend years and years and years making sure it doesn't go wrong, because there are so many possible drawbacks to it... imho.
And, on a side note, people are inherently bad. Otherwise, socialism and communism would have been the best systems out there.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
at least on the residency forums there was more passion.
Passion?!! I could definitely show some passion...but I have to go to bed now.
QUALITY HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE!!!!!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't see how anyone can be compassionate and say it's okay to use the power of government to force people in the health care field to serve others involuntarily. (Or say it's okay to force people to give up the fruits of their labor to pay for other people's care.) I believe that health care professionals should do community service and give people discounts or free service when they can. And I think more of them would if they didn't have to waste so much time and money trying to deal with insurance, malpractice, high taxes, red tape, etc. But forcing them is just as morally wrong.
Providing defense and enforcing laws are legitimate functions of government. Courts are an inherent segment of government, so no one would debate that anyways. Government subsidization of education is the reason why college tuitions are excessively high and continue to rise. So... so much for that.
In my opinion, our current system doesn't work. However, socialized medicine comes with its own set of problems that are, IMO, no better than the problems we have now. In fact, I believe it's worse. I spend a lot of time studying health care, and I have yet to be convinced that socialized medicine is a success. I am conflicted because I'm not sure the perfect system exists. I'm not sure even an ideal system exists. Every system I've come across seems to have some big issues. As such, I'm still studying different systems and different possibilities, so I don't have a real answer right now. Every time I think I have an answer, I learn some new information and change my mind. So, apologies if I don't add much to the conversation.
To add a new perspective to this debate, I'll mention the free-market option. John Stossel presents a pretty decent argument in his "Sick In America" special, though a one-hour show will hardly be thorough/complete. It's also more difficult to anticipate how it might work since it hasn't been tried in large, developed countries (as far as I know). Anyways, it's interesting to learn about since this isn't an opinion that's commonly mentioned. Here's part one, the rest is all on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
AAAAHHHHH!!!! Seriously?! Man! And I was just on my way to bed...
If you truly think that, then you must be in it for the money. You'll only treat those that can afford it. You'll recommend more expensive treatments even when they don't need it. I mean, c'mon, they're bad people; they deserve to be screwed over. And, by definition, you must be inherently bad, too, right?
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,387
- Reaction score
- 5
A quote from a Doctor in England published on Pubmed:
"A human right is a moral right of paramount importance applicable to every human being. There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a human right.Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunisation), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called human right to health care a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition."
So are you prepared to provide all these services to the millions of people in Third World countries that don't have anything close to what you've lived your entire live with? Furthermore, who decides what's necessary and what's not?
Healthcare is a human right? Really? Tell that to the people who are having it rationed in their superior socialized medical programs. Or tell it to those in Third World countries that don't have anything that resembles our healthcare.
At the end of the day, I do not want anyone but myself and my doctor making medical decisions about what is necessary and what's not. You sound so noble but in the end your grand ideas just enslave more people.
We have work to do in making healthcare more affordable. That is not an excuse for us to destroy our entire current system to become even more socialized.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
Copy-and-past your quotes all you want. To say healthcare isn't a human right because it can't be defined is simply lazy. We could definitely define healthcare.
Third world countries are a different debate, all-together. Besides, I don't need to go to third-world countries to see people in poverty. Baby steps, my friend.
Let's be honest here...the people most against healthcare reform (and not necessarily reforming to a socialized system) are those that are afraid they'll no longer be able to afford their vacation home in the hamptons. In other words, people are afraid they'll lose money. It's always about $$. And that's really, really sad.
Until we can convince our country that there's more to life than vacation homes, hollywood, and Maybachs, and that not everyone starts at the same level in life, we're stuck.
Third world countries are a different debate, all-together. Besides, I don't need to go to third-world countries to see people in poverty. Baby steps, my friend.
Let's be honest here...the people most against healthcare reform (and not necessarily reforming to a socialized system) are those that are afraid they'll no longer be able to afford their vacation home in the hamptons. In other words, people are afraid they'll lose money. It's always about $$. And that's really, really sad.
Until we can convince our country that there's more to life than vacation homes, hollywood, and Maybachs, and that not everyone starts at the same level in life, we're stuck.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,387
- Reaction score
- 5
That's simply not true but thanks for telling me what I believe.
That's great politics. Explaining to everyone else how evil those that oppose you are...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't see your logic, how does being inherently bad lead to wanting to become a dentist for the money. You just have to live with the fact that people can easily become corrupt, but it shouldn't affect your way of treating anyone. Giving people free stuff will without question make them abuse it, as someone said above me. I don't want to disappoint you, but no one is an angel.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 7
...I'm sorry, but your saying everyone is inherently bad is just plain wrong. Believe it all you'd like. I'm sure you can find "bad" in just about anything, if you choose to. Going through life with that mentality isn't productive for anyone. Why get married, have friends, have any relationship at all--including with your family? They're all bad people!
And since we're all inherently bad, yes, you will treat people differently. You'd have to, as that would be the bad thing to do. Actually, why treat anyone at all if your patients and you (by definition again) are bad? You can't be doing it to help them...you're bad, remember? So that means you're treating them for the money, or you just take pleasure in hurting people (which I would assume you don't). And since you're doing it for the money, and you're bad, you'll try to make as much money as you can...and you'll do it in bad ways...
Obviously I don't think this would seriously be true of you. I'm just trying to show you what that would mean if we were all truly bad people.
And since we're all inherently bad, yes, you will treat people differently. You'd have to, as that would be the bad thing to do. Actually, why treat anyone at all if your patients and you (by definition again) are bad? You can't be doing it to help them...you're bad, remember? So that means you're treating them for the money, or you just take pleasure in hurting people (which I would assume you don't). And since you're doing it for the money, and you're bad, you'll try to make as much money as you can...and you'll do it in bad ways...
Obviously I don't think this would seriously be true of you. I'm just trying to show you what that would mean if we were all truly bad people.
I have a cousin (from the US) who studied at Cambridge in England. Once, he was playing frisbee with some friends at a park. He messed up his ankle pretty badly, such that he was going to need surgery. He had to wait over a year and a half to get surgery. In the meantime, he couldn't ride a bike, or walk long distances on campus. Unlike most other students, he had to buy a car to get around campus.
Yeah, socialized medicine sounds great. Personally, I love the fact that if I work hard and buy insurance for myself and my wife, I know that if I twist my ankle playing frisbee, I won't be unable to walk for almost 2 years while some bureaucrats decide how much pain I'm in.
Besides, can anyone on here tell me ONE thing the bureaucracy does well? Anyone ever dealt with a government agency with tact, efficiency, and professionalism? Imagine how much of a pain it is, to say, get a copy of a birth certificate, or something like that. Now, imagine that you're having an emergency, and the same slow, inefficient, lousy system is being applied to your well-being
