- Joined
- Feb 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
which med schools are considered politically liberal? conservative?
Word.JuanRafia said:I'd guess that like most academic institutions, most med schools lean to the left. For some reason, to espouse a free-market, competitive, small government, low taxes ideal goes against the goals of most academicians.
Medicine seems headed toward a collectivist (socialist) system, which the schools encourage. Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?
I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC. We are talented people with amazing work ethics, which should be handsomely rewarded and run independently by our own kind. Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.
kdwuma said:Maybe i am not reading this right, but why would one need to know the leanings of a school? Is it a need to go somewhere that your views will be validated, Hopefully when we all become doctors we can also pick our patients to validate our views.....if you asked me i will rather go somewhere that had very different views from mine. maybe just maybe.... i will learn something. labels are going to destroy all of us..liberal ..conservative... who cares? humanity that is what matters
Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?
I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC.
Amendmoney41 said:You seem to have entirely missed the point of the match. It is not for the benefit of "social good" (that doesn't even make a lick of sense), it's largely to ensure fairness for the match-ers. Were it not for the match, you'd probably get paid a salary of $0 for, say, a derm residency or anything else that's highly coveted. A bidding war for a residency slot is certainly not something I'd look forward to.
So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?JuanRafia said:I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC...Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.
Come on man. Everyone knows that the 44 million uninsured is a bull**** stat manipulation.The Remix said:So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?
The Remix said:So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?
g3pro said:If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.
g3pro said:If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.
Blue Scrub said:Here we go!!!! Right on g3pro, socialized medicine has its own serious problems, its not all rosy for them as well.....the system we have here in the US is in my opinion the best we can come up with at the moment, and it def fits with the American way of living, I dont think socialized medicine will ever work here in the US....maybe a balance of the our current system with elements of other systems?? I have no idea, and apparently no one else does in our country
tigress said:Just because somebody supports socialized medicine doesn't mean they haven't considered the ramifications. It is self-righteous of you to believe that you are the only one who thinks about things. There are intelligent arguments on both sides. I personally support socialized healthcare and I have put a lot of thought and reading into it. So have many other doctors. http://www.pnhp.org/
In any case that wasn't the point of this thread. Arguing about it is just going to lead to name calling and lots of rudeness. An intelligent discussion may be warranted, but they usually degrade into nasty fights around here.
tigress said:This is a good response. It is possible that a change in system would work here. Certainly something ought to be done to change the existing mess. I'm not sure if socialized medicine would work in the US or not. I would like to believe that it could. But I disagree that the current system is "the best we can come up with at the moment." We can and must do better.
Good job giving me an article from a think tank that supports authors who argue that embracing a black identity entails falling into "pitfalls of victimology and separation." Anyway it's nice to know that since my father doesn't have health insurance he can have his prostate tumor removed for free if he can somehow notice it growing up there.thebiz98 said:Come on man. Everyone knows that the 44 million uninsured is a bull**** stat manipulation.
check out this site.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-what_health.htm
1) 44 million includes people uninsured AT ANY TIME during the 12 month period (job changes, graduation...)
2) Lots of those people can afford it but don't buy it
3) Anyone can walk in to a public hospital to get catastrophic care - covered by the gov. Cook County Hospital - the only one I have experience with - will dispense most drugs for free.
I know this may not fit in with your world view, but when people say that universities lean left, they are usually referring to social issues. But since you raise a much larger point, let's pause to think. Free-markets are good but imperfect servants of society. Competition is always good, but there are lots of conditions in which competition doesn't emerge (e.g., those industries with a high cost of entry, like health care), and some in which it simply cannot exist (like your power company; it's not practical to have power lines from five different companies running to your house, so you and your neighbors choose one and pay whatever they want, which is way too much in places like CA). Also, I would like to dispel the notion that liberals hate their money and want to give away more of it in taxes. It is an effective caricature of the left, though.JuanRafia said:I'd guess that like most academic institutions, most med schools lean to the left. For some reason, to espouse a free-market, competitive, small government, low taxes ideal goes against the goals of most academicians.
The police and the fire department are "collectivist (socialist)" as well, then. I know that you guys use the word "socialist" because it stirs a lot of emotion, but there are some industries in which it makes sense. Is health care one of them? I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that you need to stop making it sound like the most ridiculous idea ever proposed.JuanRafia said:Medicine seems headed toward a collectivist (socialist) system, which the schools encourage. Take the match system for instance, where we will all be paid the same during our respective residencies because the powers that be feel our talents should be distributed equally for the "greater social good." Why can't we bargain on our own behalfs come residency where some people have better minds, social skills, and talents than others?
Neither do I. But I also don't want a young kid who has done nothing wrong in the world to die because he didn't get his vaccinations.JuanRafia said:I for one do not want a government run, universal health care system where we as future doctors are treated like postal workers, supervised by some bureaucrat in DC. We are talented people with amazing work ethics, which should be handsomely rewarded and run independently by our own kind. Give charity care when you want according to personal standards and charge what you want when you feel justified. Don't let formulas and government mandates dictate how you practice and what you charge. You can still look out for your own interests (ie be concerned with making money) and perform needed, positive acts to keep people well.
I certainly know what the ramification are. I work with the Universal Healthcare Action Network. I also know that as a future physician, my patients needs go before mine. Nobody should have to worry about obtaining quality access to healthcare, no matter what their financial situation or social status. I'm uninsured now because I decided to use my money to apply to medical school. Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.g3pro said:If you haven't learned already from other medical systems (* cough * France, Canada, UK * cough *), everyone suffers. I'm shocked that as a future physician, you haven't seriously considered the ramifications of socialized medicine.
The Remix said:Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.
bobhagopian said:If you really want to get into an honest debate, you must first admit that a society can be successful in a highly-regulated, high-tax environment (e.g., Norway), just as it can be successful in a deregulated, low-tax environment.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=23340superdavykinz said:Yet I guess it wouldn't matter if we had healthcare or not if we got nuked. What's this about cow farts?
The Remix said:I certainly know what the ramification are. I work with the Universal Healthcare Action Network. I also know that as a future physician, my patients needs go before mine. Nobody should have to worry about obtaining quality access to healthcare, no matter what their financial situation or social status. I'm uninsured now because I decided to use my money to apply to medical school. Yet my taxes support cow fart research and missile defense systems. It's simply wrong.
i don't think the system necessarily "discriminates against conservatives", but everything else you said was remarkably astute for such a silly thread.Llenroc said:Here's how it is in academic medicine: academic doctors make 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of money of practicing physicians. They are bitter about this. They think they are the smartest and deserve the most money. Naturally, they favor socializing the healthcare system. "It's no skin off their ass", as they say. Also, many of them are dependent on the government for research money or money to keep money-losing teaching hospitals running, so naturally they favor higher taxes and more government spending. That colors the whole system highly liberal, and probably discriminates against conservatives.
Wow, so you'd rather have the same *****s that are currently botching up our social security funds botching up health care...sounds like a good idea to me too. Plus, who really needs to get an MRI done quickly anyway. We don't really need those to be in EVERY hospital. And, I'd say its reasonable to have to travel 4 hours to get an emergency CAT scan. All this so the gov't can save money and still charge you a 15-20% tax. Plus, I've found that socialist systems work wonders for peoples' drive to excel in their fields. I mean, if I get paid the same to do my best work as lazy work, I'd sure as heck be likely to do my personal best, especially since my patients have no choice but to see me because I am their gov't assigned health care provider. Plus, you know, I'd just about let anyone do surgery on me, so I'll go ahead and let the government pick a doc for me. Plus, I mean why even perform most diagnostic tests, I mean, I'd get paid the same either way, so why do extra work? Yet another great idea I just had: We can be like England and stop covering people at age 65 cause, well, old people are a useless burden to society anyway. Yeah, it makes alot of sense to go towards a socialist health care system and I can't wait. And no, I'm NOT bitter...The Remix said:So i guess the 44+ million without coverage will just have to take one for the team, huh? Who cares if they all suffer as long as you can push your jag and treat a cute homeless kid for free every now and then?
rjgennarelli said:I just have a couple quick questions for those of you (if any) who favor lower progressive taxation, tax cuts geared toward the wealthy, less gov't funds going toward welfare and social security, and less government regulation: how do you propose that this country controls its widening income gap? How does this country, with a president imposing arguably some of the most conservative policies of the age, stop, or even slow down, the massive amounts of wealth from being engulfed by the richest 1 % of Americans?
Democrat. Republican. They are nothing more than two socially created concepts, which people like to use when referring to the stereotypical "liberal," or the stereotypical "conservative." Virtually nobody can precisely fit either one of these paradigms. It is true, however, that people's views can "lean" either way in a relative sense, and when they do, they tend to be automatically labeled as a "conservative," or a "liberal." This "labeling" makes things much easier for us to understand one another, but nothing is that simple. We have all been told not to look at things in "black or white," in a sort of "either-or" basis, but that is just what we do. We are so quick to draw conclusions and match people to these abstract models which we have in our heads that we never stop and think about what we are doing.
Nothing naturally occurring precisely fits our abstract models, and this is the same with the political party system. Most people do not perfectly fit the ideals of either party, but we declare ourselves part of one regardless. This suggests that the solutions to our societal problems should not comply with the ideals of one party or the other, but rather, they should be inclusive of them both. If this is not the solution, then this country is destined to become more divided than it already is, and our problems will never be solved.
Nothing naturally occurring precisely fits our abstract models, and this is the same with the political party system. Most people do not perfectly fit the ideals of either party, but we declare ourselves part of one regardless. This suggests that the solutions to our societal problems should not comply with the ideals of one party or the other, but rather, they should be inclusive of them both. If this is not the solution, then this country is destined to become more divided than it already is, and our problems will never be solved.QUOTE]
This is an insane ramble. I hope everyone sees that. It's an uninteresting observation that people have individualized desires rather than party-line preferences. DUH. How chaotic would our politics be otherwise? Instead, we decide which tent we fall under and support other policies in return for others' support of ours.
As for whether we can categorize ourselves as Liberal or Conservative - they aren't 'social constructions'. Why or why would hundreds of millions of Americans use those 'labels'? Have you discovered 'the truth'? Actually, those 'paradigms' represent consistent and unique world views from which we derive at least two distinct ways to approach policy and social dillemas. Do you want me to list examples?
Finally, your assertion that wealth is being gobbled up by some top 1% is total crazy-talk. Where the hell did you get that from? Back up jabber about wealth-gaps with...facts and analysis.
Studies Tracking people once in the Top 20% and Bottom 20% found incredible instability. That is, as time progresses it becomes more likely for someone to drop from the top 20 than to stay in the bottom 20.
Also, what does it mean to "REdistribute" income? What does it mean that wealth has been 'controlled' by some group? WHO distributed the income in the first place? What crazy person created such an 'unjust' program? Or is Income is earned...distributed by...the market?
People are right, this thread got derailed. I'm sorry for adding to that, but this had to be said.
Stay on your rocker. Nobody is trying to install a "Marx Medicine" system. Universal Healthcare means just that. Everyone is covered. If you don't think the poorest in our society deserve, at the least, quality health care regardless of ability to pay than I'm not sure where our American value system went wrong. Or maybe you think all of the underclass are lazy bums that deserve their situation?NEATOMD said:Wow, so you'd rather have the same *****s that are currently botching up our social security funds botching up health care...sounds like a good idea to me too. Plus, who really needs to get an MRI done quickly anyway. We don't really need those to be in EVERY hospital. And, I'd say its reasonable to have to travel 4 hours to get an emergency CAT scan. All this so the gov't can save money and still charge you a 15-20% tax. Plus, I've found that socialist systems work wonders for peoples' drive to excel in their fields. I mean, if I get paid the same to do my best work as lazy work, I'd sure as heck be likely to do my personal best, especially since my patients have no choice but to see me because I am their gov't assigned health care provider. Plus, you know, I'd just about let anyone do surgery on me, so I'll go ahead and let the government pick a doc for me. Plus, I mean why even perform most diagnostic tests, I mean, I'd get paid the same either way, so why do extra work? Yet another great idea I just had: We can be like England and stop covering people at age 65 cause, well, old people are a useless burden to society anyway. Yeah, it makes alot of sense to go towards a socialist health care system and I can't wait. And no, I'm NOT bitter...
rjgennarelli said:How do you propose that this country controls its widening income gap? How does this country, with a president imposing arguably some of the most conservative policies of the age, stop, or even slow down, the massive amounts of wealth from being engulfed by the richest 1 % of Americans?
The Remix said:Stay on your rocker. Nobody is trying to install a "Marx Medicine" system. Universal Healthcare means just that. Everyone is covered. If you don't think the poorest in our society deserve, at the least, quality health care regardless of ability to pay than I'm not sure where our American value system went wrong. Or maybe you think all of the underclass are lazy bums that deserve their situation?
Yeah, until it dropped me once I turned 19.thebiz98 said:but the poorest ARE covered in our system, right now. (Medicaid is pretty good)
but the poorest ARE covered in our system, right now. (Medicaid is pretty good)
5 presidents are on a planeUSCTex said:Okay, I was pretty rude and no one ever convinces anyone to change their minds in these threads so I have a joke to tell...
A guy and a giraffe walk into a bar. The bartender thinks this is wierd but he serves them. Well, the giraffe can't hold his alcohol and gets drunker and drunker.
Finally, the giraffe passes out on the floor and the guy gets up to leave. As he's about to exit the bartender gets upset and pointing to the giraffe, shouts, "You can't leave that lyin' around here!"
The guy stops in the door, "That's not a lion, that's a giraffe!"
Dude!The Remix said:5 presidents are on a plane
Five presidents are on a plane: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. George Washington says, "I will make someone happy!" and throws a dollar bill off the plane.
Then Abraham Lincoln says, "I will make five people happy!" and throws 5 one dollar bills off the plane.
Then Thomas Jefferson says, "I will make 500 people happy!" and throws 500 one dollar bills off the plane.
Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.
The Remix said:5 presidents are on a plane
Five presidents are on a plane: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. George Washington says, "I will make someone happy!" and throws a dollar bill off the plane.
Then Abraham Lincoln says, "I will make five people happy!" and throws 5 one dollar bills off the plane.
Then Thomas Jefferson says, "I will make 500 people happy!" and throws 500 one dollar bills off the plane.
Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.
USCTex said:This is a not a valid question because as the previous poster pointed out it assumes that we NEED to "control" the income gap. Its neither necessary from a philosophical argument nor a pragmatic one.
"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
The right to property is inherent, on par with health and life and safety. You cannot violate my right to property, by taking my taxes and spending them on another, in order to maintain someone else's right to life and health...if both rights are just as valid.
Any study of our history shows our American value system is based not on equaltarianism but on the right to individual liberty. Don't confuse it with the history of those european crackpots.
rjgennarelli said:Okay USC, you're entirely right. The country we live in is a complete meritocracy.
USCTex said:First of all, saying we're a meritocracy is in no way inconsistent with my belief that this country is completely founded on the idea of individual liberty not equality.
Second, if that was true Las Vegas wouldn't be nearly as big as it is (we wouldn't reward laziness and luck)...plus I don't think anyone here (not even myself) would say that George Bush is the smartest or most talented person in the country...since he serves at the pinnacle of power, it's hard to call us a meritocracy.
We're only a meritocracy in the sense that EVERY country where free markets generally rule is a meritocracy. Which, despite some of Europe's socialist tendecies, is still most of the western world.
rjgennarelli said:1. I was being sarcastic.
2. What about those who are sociologically disadvantaged ie victims of racial disparity, etc.
Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, theoretically we are a meritocracy, but in reality we are not.
MoosePilot said:This joke might make a good litmus test
Which punchline is funnier?
Then Bill Clinton says, "I will make the whole world happy!" and throws George W. Bush off the plane.
or
Then George W. Bush says, "I will make the whole country happy!" and throws Bill Clinton off the plane.