liberal vs. conservative

[Biscuit799]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Every school is liberal leaning (as an institution). This is simply a fact. Take Colorado. A red state who only voted for a democratic (and a conservative one at that) senator bc the republican was really corrupt, and who's the biggest name at CU? That's right, Ward Churchill. I go to FSU in Tallahassee, Fl and even down here the school is extremely leftist. IMHO it is because schools receive funding from govn't, and thus favor large govn't (only a hypothesis, no data to back it up, in fact any data for/against would be appreciated).

on another note...
Some of you people really need to take an economics course and check out some economic statistics.

 

[kikkoman]

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.

You sound like you have a lot of empathy.

 

[jdovez]

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.

I am going to have to remember this one, its funny because......its true. As far as the argument between universal healthcare and not having care for all goes, its probably the single best indicator about one's motivation for going into medicine. If you believe that everyone needs to have coverage which is essentially equal and uniform, then you are PROBABLY going into medicine to truly play a socially important role. However, if, regardless of rationalizations and thoughtful arguments, you state that medicaid works fine, and there "arent really that many people that are effectively uninsured, or are uninsured by choice (this is the stupidest statement I have ever seen, no one wants to be uninsured)", then you are probably becoming a doctor, foremost because it is lucrative and respected (you may have some elements of wanting to help people achieve better health through a limited degree of empathy and/or caring, but number 1 in your opinion is yourself).

Oh and saying....this system doesn't work in canada, or europe, or wherever, necessarily neglects the fact that our nation is by far the "richest" in the world (largely because we raped and pillaged our way to getting economic resources in "the new worlds" and because we seemingly mastered the ability to maximize profits through that little system called slavery). By being the "richest" we have the ability to create a system that is larger and better funded than the rest of the nations in the world. No model exists for the perfect system, but one must keep trying to work to achieve success.

Oh yeah, and someone mentioned missile defense.....that is the stupidest waste of money anyone has ever devised. The system is like trying to catch a floating atom with a pair of chopsticks......good luck.

 

[Biscuit799]

Oh and saying....this system doesn't work in canada, or europe, or wherever, necessarily neglects the fact that our nation is by far the "richest" in the world (largely because we raped and pillaged our way to getting economic resources in "the new worlds" and because we seemingly mastered the ability to maximize profits through that little system called slavery). By being the "richest" we have the ability to create a system that is larger and better funded than the rest of the nations in the world. No model exists for the perfect system, but one must keep trying to work to achieve success.

How exactly did our nation rape and pillage its way to getting economic resources in the new worlds? And it is my understanding that America was the new world? Look at Britain. Their empire spanned the entire globe, and they certainly don't have the resource capacity that America has. What about China? There were tremendous and brutal wars that brought that country together. In fact, pretty much every country has a violent past (Japan, France, Germany, Italy, need I go on?). Oh and slavery made America's economy strong? Slavery only existed in the south, and only affected the farming industry. Most of the reason the south ceceded was because their economy wasn't keeping up with the industrialization in the north and midwest. You really need to check your facts before bashing the only country in the world that truly rewards individual accomplishment.

 

[criminallyinane]

Yeah! Get those socialists off my back! I like it how it is now, a corporate, managed health care system where we as future doctors are treated like Wal-Mart employees, supervised by some MBA in the corporate HQ.

That's a bit of an exaggeration - at least we are free to set our own salaries, etc, which would not be possible with a socialist system. Would you rather have Big Brother looking over your damn shoulder for the rest of your life? Yeah, the insurance paperwork and headaches are awful, but at least doctors today don't work for the gov't, which sucks.

 

[liverotcod]

I suspect Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson would gang up on Bush and Clinton and throw them both off.

 

[superdevil]

I suspect Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson would gang up on Bush and Clinton and throw them both off.

i would certainly hope so.

 

[kwc1979]

I suspect Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson would gang up on Bush and Clinton and throw them both off.

This is by far the most intelligent post on this thread!

 

[NEATOMD]

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?

It's not that I don't think that everyone deserves quality healthcare, its just that I believe a universal healthcare system would lead to a lower quality of care for everyone.

P.S. If you do believe that Universal Healthcare simply entails covering everyone (without considering how we will do such), then you're being pretty naive. I'm not trying to insult you, its just that the only system for covering everyone equally is the socialist healthcare system (and still people with more money end up with better care) which is worse than what we have right now in the end.

P.S.S The stay on your rocker comment made laugh. 👍 👍

 

[Blue Scrub]

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.

Good job! You called it! 👍

 

[USCTex]

You sound like you have a lot of empathy.

🙄

I personally would hope to be involved in the care of the indigent but there is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to help by TAKING their money and someone helping by personal choice through a system that runs on charity, of which I would very willingly be a huge part of.

You're looking at the problem on a very low level if you can't decipher that distinction.

 

[CircleTheDrain]

It's not that I don't think that everyone deserves quality healthcare, its just that I believe a universal healthcare system would lead to a lower quality of care for everyone.

P.S. If you do believe that Universal Healthcare simply entails covering everyone (without considering how we will do such), then you're being pretty naive. I'm not trying to insult you, its just that the only system for covering everyone equally is the socialist healthcare system (and still people with more money end up with better care) which is worse than what we have right now in the end.

P.S.S The stay on your rocker comment made laugh. 👍 👍

Ah but what about the Canadian system?

A fragmented payment structure is intrinsically more expensive than a single payer system. For insurers, it means the duplication of claims processing facilities and reduced insured-group size, which increases overhead.
Fragmentation also raises costs for providers who deal with multitudes of different insurance plans - at least 755 in Seattle alone. This means providers must determine each patient’s insurance coverage and eligibility for a particular service, and keep track of varying co-payments, referral networks, approval requirements and formularies. In contrast, Canadian physicians send virtually all bills to a single insurer using a simple billing form or computer program, and may refer patients to any colleague or hospital.
Canadians spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care than Americans do, and the quality of services is as good as in the US. The system is publicly funded. Health care is paid for by the government, but is not provided by it. It is provided by private doctors who work on a fee-for-service basis, and by non-profit private hospitals. 😎

 

[tigress]

I was trying to stay out of this discussion, but...

Before other people respond to the previous post about the Canadian health system by saying how bad it really is, I'd just like to say that my two close friends who are Canadian, one of whom is in med school and the other in dental school, are both very happy with the Canadian healthcare system and think the US one is screwed up. Sure you'll find Canadians who hate their system, but there are plenty who are happy with it. In any case, it's definitely not perfect, but it has potential as a beginning model for change in the US system. Whatever changes the US impliments will almost definitely have to be an altogether new model and a unique system, because the US situation is unique.

 

[USCTex]

Like it's been said for those who imagine health care in this country needs a change towards socialization, the final product will most likely be unique and not a direct port of the Canadian system. Even so, here's more evidence of the long wait times for care under the Canadian way of doing things:

Robert Cihak - July 13, 2004 - The Seattle Times

"A study recently released by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, B.C., compared industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that strive to provide universal health-care access. Among those countries, Canada spends most on its system while ranking among the lowest in such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment and key health outcomes.

One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada — such as Sweden, Japan, Australia and France — Canada outlaws most private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it's illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and get the service privately.

At the same time, to try to keep spending down, the government chips away at the number and variety of covered services. According to another Fraser Institute survey, this means that on average a patient must wait in line 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment."

...

"Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man who requires a routine hip replacement was more than six months; in contrast, not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients have this brief a wait."

 

[El Duderino]

Ah, the good old healthcare debate. In its good reincarnations, it's a civil exchange of ideas and visions, in its bad reincarnations it's a flamefest full of knee-jerk accusations of communism vs heartlessness topped off with pointless metaphors and hyperbole.

To the people who say that "socialized medicine" never has worked and never will work, I will invoke that like it or not, you are headed that way at an alarming rate. 45% of healthcare in the US today is provided by public sources, and since both Medicare and Medicaid are expanding rapidly, that number will only continue to increase. The old slogan "keep government out of healthcare" is even more ignorant today than it was when it made the Clinton plan crash and burn (not saying that that plan was good, just saying that it crashed and burned, which noone can dispute 🙂).

To those who say the US needs a single-payer system, I say "wake up and smell the maple nut crunch". You are up against not only the average American (who will cringe at the thought of having to wait for an MRI or an operation), but the entire insurance industry and most doctors in private practice (who are very aware of the fact that public reimbursement = less reimbursement). Why do you think not ONE of the Democratic presidential candidates had a single-payer system on the agenda? Changing to a single-payer system in one fell swoop simply will not happen, so debating the merits of a single-payer system is a waste of time.

Every system has its problems. Problems with the current system include:

- Outrageous cost (14% of the GDP, give or take)
- Mediocre health outcomes (the US did pass Cuba recently, but still not catching up to Costa Rica)
- Millions and millions of uninsured and underinsured
- Increasing reliance on managed care, meaning less and less choice for the patient
- Patients that can't afford medications and/or medical treatment provide fertile ground for quacks and fly-by-night medication schemes

Problems that must be avoided in the future system:
- Americans will not accept waiting times
- Market principles must not be compromised (they are what built America's strength)

Does everyone agree with the above? That would be a good start.

The solution?

I don't have a clue. But being able to see both sides of an argument is the first step to making a sound decision. Name-calling and/or off-hand dismissal is not.

 

[USCTex]

To the people who say that "socialized medicine" never has worked and never will work, I will invoke that like it or not, you are headed that way at an alarming rate. 45% of healthcare in the US today is provided by public sources, and since both Medicare and Medicaid are expanding rapidly, that number will only continue to increase. The old slogan "keep government out of healthcare" is even more ignorant today than it was when it made the Clinton plan crash and burn (not saying that that plan was good, just saying that it crashed and burned, which noone can dispute 🙂).

Ah, a cynic...the situation is bad and I don't know how to fix it.

I figure we should start from what SHOULD happen and work from there, not restate the current condition and call the possibility of change gloomy.

I gotta find something better to do with my days without classes...I think this is my fourth or fifth post to this thread alone today. 😱

 

[indo]

I suspect Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson would gang up on Bush and Clinton and throw them both off.

They would ask, "how many slaves does it take to row fast enough to keep this metal tube in the air?"

 

[El Duderino]

Ah, a cynic...the situation is bad and I don't know how to fix it.

I'm going to paraphrase one of my favorite guys (Donald Rumsfeld) and say that not only do I not know how to fix the system, I know that I don't know how to fix it, which in my mind puts me in a pretty good place to find a solution. Much better, in fact, than someone who claims to know how to fix it, when in fact that person's knowledge of the issue derives from sources on the same side of the political spectrum. (Not directed at you or anyone in particular, it is a very general observation.)

I figure we should start from what SHOULD happen and work from there, not restate the current condition and call the possibility of change gloomy.

That is a very good idea, but the problem with that approach is that the people involved in the debate do not agree on the problems with the current system (republicans generally say the main problems are high costs due to frivolous lawsuits and increasing government control; democrats will say the main problems are un-/underinsurance and poor health outcomes for those in that group; I would say they both have a point, and ALL of these problems have to be addressed). If you see one problem with the system and another person sees another problem, your chances of finding a mutually acceptable solution are slim.

That was why I tried to establish a common starting point. Unless we agree on a couple of key issues (rising costs being a problem, underinsurance being a problem etc), we're going to revert to the flamefest... 🙂

 

[El Duderino]

Sort of a naive response. Every legislative issue is under DEBATE. Saying that the issue is under debate and therefor no solution can be achieved is absolutley...well...ridiculous. That's basically what you've done...you've stated that the two sides "do not agree on the problems"...that's a direct quote from you and to that quote I say, "Well, duh." Of course they don't agree on the problems...it's the entire point of having a multi-party system of government. That may be the most useless post on this board.

ANyway, if my grammar and spelling (or logic) is inappropriate I'll correct it tomorrow...it's Thursday nightl; I've been drinkin'.

Now that you are (presumably) sober, are you able to understand my post (because you sure as hell missed the point when you were drunk)?

 

[JuanRafia]

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.

Free markets are never imperfect, they just exist. You cannot refer to them imperfect just because you do not like them. When one entity dominates an industry that is competition. Other entities are free to enter and the burden is on them to come up with a new model. Modern examples are Southwest and JetBlue airlines. United, American, and Delta existed and dominated air travel and made it hard to enter that industry. Then, one day the upstarts decided they would offer a different business model (eg no frills, less benefits) and voila made huge profits while the dinosaur carriers got mired in unprofitablity. The point is that markets evolve, WITH TIME, and never NEED govt regulation. Regulation is just there to help take away from the supercompetitiors and make bleeding hearts feel good about themselves for helping those less fortunate.

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. Each has its pros and cons, but it's not as ridiculous a choice as the right seems to want it to be. I, for one, prefer something in the middle -- a tax rate low enough to serve as an incentive for being a good employee, but high enough to allow us to acheive some national goals that wouldn't be possible without money (e.g., defense, space program, etc.) I want something deregulated enough to foster competition, but regulated enough to ensure transparency and stymie corruption and collusion.

I do not think that a society is successful when it takes from the most talented, fortunate, and ambitious individuals and gives to those with nothing. Charity forced on a population is a raping of individual freedom. Charity cannot come at the end of a gun (read, by govt mandate.) Why not make certain taxes optional? Those who desparately feel that they want to give more of their money to support universal health coverage, expanded social security, new monuments to memorialize pseudosocialactivisticons, etc. could. And those who think money is better spent by individual citizens in a manner they see fit could do that.

Oh, and please don't forget that the National Residency Match Program was the result of complaints by medical students. I personally wish I could be admitted to several programs and then get a choice, but I am still rational enough to understand that there are real benefits to having an organized match program. I direct you to savethematch.org for a better summary than I can provide. What I can tell you is that it has nothing to do with schools pushing a collectivist agenda. You may be interested to know that resident salaries, for instance, are primarily determined by the amount of funding that Congress provides. But, you're right, Congress is dominated by leftist, socialist liberals as well.

The point is that the match stinks because schools are mandated to interview certain populations even though they might not be the best students or doctors. I don't think schools push collectivist agendas, but govt does. Private organizations cannot compete against the govt to pay resident salaries when the govt has free money (taxes) to support resident education. When govt controls the funding they set the silly agendas of arbitrarily increasing the representation of certain populations in the name of the all holy buzzword diversity. And i happen to be a part of the population that govt so loves to court in their attempts to increase diversity.

 

[Shredder]

i feel like bumping this thread.

 

[VPDcurt]

to get back to the point of the thread...

rule of thumb - liberal in traditioanlly liberal regions of the country, and conservative in traditionally conservitive areas. so nyc, basically liberal, oklahoma, basically conservative.

Terrible rule of thumb. Most educators, administrators, etc., are not necessarily from the local community and therefore do not accurately represent that geographical region. I went to a small, private undergrad school in the South. While most of the students leaned to the right (as did the surrounding towns), almost every teacher I had leaned to the left...I could tell from comments they would either say under their breath or "jokingly" during a lecture. A better rule of thumb was stated earlier: most of the people in academia tend to lean to the left. I am not saying or suggesting that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but it has definitely been my experience thus far. The same thing applies to my graduate institution...also in VA.

 

[Shredder]

is there any decent school i can go to where i will be completely surrounded by conservatives?

 

[dilated]

is there any decent school i can go to where i will be completely surrounded by conservatives?

How do you feel about Bob Jones University?

 

[DrBowtie]

Shredder, we could perhaps charter one.
Admissions requirements: Conservative, High Test Scores, High Grades, Business & Science majors only.

 

[The Smart Guy]

Shredder, we could perhaps charter one.
Admissions requirements: Conservative, High Test Scores, High Grades, Business & Science majors only.

Count me in. Biochemistry and Econ double major here

 

[DrBowtie]

I like the Phil Ivey avatar...too bad he went out in the 20's in the WSOP main event this year

 

[dynx]

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.

Yeah! so the clear solution is to have the Gov. mandate vaccines for all people! What could be wrong with this idea...well MAYBE
the government would f*ck up the estimate of how much those vaccines would cost...
No problem they could just cut reimbursment for those vaccines to save money.
But then maybe companies wouldnt want to make those vaccines for so cheap and production would be limited to a couple of high volume companies.
Whats the problem with that?
Well maybe one of those companies will have a contamination problem and the supply of that years vaccines will be severely limited causing a shortage, long lines, rationing, lost work hours etc etc...That could never happen in a million years right?

Don't learn from history it will only confuse you, the government knows best and its better that nobody be vaccinated then all the "rich" folks get it.

 

[Shredder]

Shredder, we could perhaps charter one.
Admissions requirements: Conservative, High Test Scores, High Grades, Business & Science majors only.

ha youre great brettbatchelor, finally im not the only one to propose firing up a new school. i cant wait to pump out universal soldier-like best docs ever. and they will be driven by greed too but cure everyone, innovation will be incessant with unbridled incentives. underpriveleged and underserved areas be damned, just pay up! strict meritocracy, diversity out the window--japan, china, and india all show its a meaningless political buzzword anyway, in due time the ramifications will become too glaringly obvious to sweep under the rug. and if youre world champ harmonica and skateboarder, save it--right wing med makes drs not dr. tony hawks.

im applying to all these good schools and have no idea how i plan to butt heads with the socialistic adcoms. theyre going to hate me and i wont get in anywhere, im so pessimistic but its totally unfair. hardliner right wing schools would adore me and shower me with 😍 wow what a fun spiel. anyway, im still uncertain about which good school if any are hardline.

 

[pagemmapants]

Shredder, we could perhaps charter one.
Admissions requirements: Conservative, High Test Scores, High Grades, Business & Science majors only.

:::Sends in application, with a PS that reads the following only:::

"John Galt is my Hero."

 

[Shredder]

:::Sends in application, with a PS that reads the following only:::

"John Galt is my Hero."

ssh, im working on finding out who he is right now, no spoilers! although i am thinking that if im asked the famous lunch guest interview question, i may add adam smith and rand to my table. i wonder how a med interviewer would construe that.

btw do you think that ppl ever send bizarre PSs or apps like that, and are successful with it? like truly defying the whole cookie cutter thing? or writing in 2nd person? "you better let me in bc of this, you that"