Med School admissions is getting too competitive.

[Doudline]

---

Members do not see this ad.

When you start your job search you will see the bolded above isn't true.

Perhaps you're right - I might have based my statements on unrepresentative anecdotes. (Although, I'd argue, you're unlikely to know all the details of the story yourself. It must vary immensely based on specialty, region, etc.)

Nevertheless, we ought to ask ourselves the question whether it's more effective economically to give incentives than to train/welcome more physicians. It's not as obvious as some may think.

 

[Spector1]

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the US government is enabling universities to require 4-year degrees by funding undergrad degrees. As many (most?) medical schools are associated with universities, taking applications from people who used free, online resources to meet pre-reqs would remove much of the incentive to attend college for our crowd and thus deny universities revenue. It's tough to get people to act against their own self-interest. (The AMA promoting a fictional doctor shortage is one example.)

Perhaps we could make the transition by implementing policies like you suggest which don't reduce the overall cost to the student at first.

Also, it's just a drastic change, and the US isn't good at that. We still haven't switched to the metric system FFS!

Yup, as much as people love to heap praise on the alter of the four year liberal arts university, unless you study something very technical (eg engineering, chemistry, bio, econ), most people don't learn anything of terribly great value.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Could you please publicly propose a "wack score" for hospital administration?

I hope for a Cochrane review on this ...

 

[Lucca]

Yup, as much as people love to heap praise on the alter of the four year liberal arts university, unless you study something very technical (eg engineering, chemistry, bio, econ), most people don't learn anything of terribly great value.

I think this also depends on the student and the university. I've taken plenty of physics, maths and I do computational research so I've taught myself a lot of computer science as well. "Technical stuff" that articles in the NYT say our students desperately need to learn and I'll say that I've learned far more influential and valuable things from my English and Philosophy classes. However, I believe that is due to two factors 1) I actually care about those classes and 2) I have had professors and opportunities that have allowed me to get the most I possibly could from those courses. There is plenty of value in sitting in a classroom and reading a book, in my opinion. I don't believe one needs to major in English to talk to people, or in political science to understand how important is to vote or in economics to know how to balance a checkbook, save for retirement and understand wtf the Fed is talking about when they say "quantitative easing". I also don't think you need to major in Physics to understand why the LHC is a big deal or in Computer Science to know how to program and think logically. A quality, broad, liberal education still does a good job of providing students with the most valuable education they need in my opinion; the structure of one's education should not be at the whim of the economy. The university is not a factory.

 

[deleted480308]

Medicine isn't merely a throwaway service to be provided, it's a necessity for survival. Schools have an obligation to do their best to ensure that that service is available to as many people as possible, as medicine is, at its core, a noble profession with great responsibilities to society that come along with the great rights we are given. Hence, schools must select people that will maintain those responsibilities and the nobility of the profession.

Once medicine becomes truly "just a job," it is basically screwed, as happened in Russia, where being a physician is viewed as not only just a job, but a lowly endeavor that is completely without nobility or prestige.

I'm kind of weary of the idea that this isn't a job. It's a job. It has incredibly high opportunity cost to get and incredibly high expenses...that's an investment that I expect to be paid back in cash. I don't need someone to think I'm noble just because of my profession. everyone else in the planet expects cash for their time and I'm not different

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm kind of weary of the idea that this isn't a job. It's a job. It has incredibly high opportunity cost to get and incredibly high expenses...that's an investment that I expect to be paid back in cash. I don't need someone to think I'm noble just because of my profession. everyone else in the planet expects cash for their time and I'm not different

And that's fine, we won't force you to take a stance you don't want to. But the majority of us would prefer Medicare to retain its roots in humanity and altruism, as we are one of the only fields in which people live and die by our hands. Obtaining their trust in that endeavor requires more than just a dedication to the dollar- they may believe we have their best interests and the interests of the public at heart. When greed is our only concern, our motives become suspect and our methods looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

 

[deleted480308]

And that's fine, we won't force you to take a stance you don't want to. But the majority of us would prefer Medicare to retain its roots in humanity and altruism, as we are one of the only fields in which people live and die by our hands. Obtaining their trust in that endeavor requires more than just a dedication to the dollar- they may believe we have their best interests and the interests of the public at heart. When greed is our only concern, our motives become suspect and our methods looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

I call bull---- on the implication that somehow we owe something beside a job well done for our pay to society. If my home builder sucks, that house falls on me and I die...but I don't think my builder has to have some altruistic feelings for me. They do a good job, I pay them well. The same thing goes for those that prepare food, those that build planes, bridge builders, etc etc....

It's a fallacy that profit is a bad motive.

 

[Lucca]

I call bull---- on the implication that somehow we owe something beside a job well done for our pay to society. If my home builder sucks, that house falls on me and I die...but I don't think my builder has to have some altruistic feelings for me. They do a good job, I pay them well. The same thing goes for those that prepare food, those that build planes, bridge builders, etc etc....

It's a fallacy that profit is a bad motive.

I don't know about profit being inherently bad but it certainly isn't enough. If profit is the only compensation to be expected then we could never actually pay society back dollar for dollar for what we take from them. We drive on society's rods. We were born in society's hospitals. We go to society's schools. Society tells us that our money has value. Society gives us our property back if it is taken from us; society tells us our ownership means something. Society values the contracts we make between one another. Society gives us a place to sleep and learn while we learn how to be doctors. Society's public hospitals let us practice and make mistakes that will sometimes kill and maim others due to our own ignorance or inability. In financial terms, all we really do is take from society. The paycheck we receive afterwards if everyone shared your view would be very very small.

Even if you have no feeling of duty or responsibility towards your fellow man you at least have to appreciate the societal cost of doing a bad job as a physician. It just means another physician/hospital is going to spend more money fixing your crappy job. Even if you tried your best and this is the outcome all you are doing is taking.

 

[deleted480308]

I don't know about profit being inherently bad but it certainly isn't enough. If profit is the only compensation to be expected then we could never actually pay society back dollar for dollar for what we take from them. We drive on society's rods. We were born in society's hospitals. We go to society's schools. Society tells us that our money has value. Society gives us our property back if it is taken from us; society tells us our ownership means something. Society values the contracts we make between one another. Society gives us a place to sleep and learn while we learn how to be doctors. Society's public hospitals let us practice and make mistakes that will sometimes kill and maim others due to our own ignorance or inability. In financial terms, all we really do is take from society. The paycheck we receive afterwards if everyone shared your view would be very very small.

that's some pretty deep socialist crap you're shoveling

 

[Lucca]

that's some pretty deep socialist crap you're shoveling

What part of it isn't true? You dont drive on roads paid for by other people? You dont go to the grocery store? You dont pump gas? You dont put money into social security? You dont make contracts expecting them to be honored? Does property magically belong to you because you say it does? You dont make phone calls? You dont use the internet? You dont use GPS? You dont take medicine? The amount of money you pay for services could never pay for what they actually cost, thats why we do it together.

 

[deleted480308]

What part of it isn't true? You dont drive on roads paid for by other people? You dont go to the grocery store? You dont pump gas? You dont put money into social security? You dont make contracts expecting them to be honored? Does property magically belong to you because you say it does? You dont make phone calls? You dont use the internet? You dont use GPS? You dont take medicine? The amount of money you pay for services could never pay for what they actually cost, thats why we do it together.

Don't be daft...your premise implies that I didn't pay for those things, and I did

 

[Lucca]

Don't be daft...your premise implies that I didn't pay for those things, and I did

But you didn't. When you went to the grocery store and you paid for the tomatoes did you also pay for the roads that got you there? No, your great grandparents probably did with their taxes. Them and all other 80 something year olds probably, depending on how old your community is. When you paid for the tomatoes you may have also paid for the transportation cost of those tomatoes but did you pay the scientists who developed the treatments that helped those tomatoes be fat and plump and free of bugs and dangerous microbes? Did you pay for the researchers who made sure those chemicals werent killing you? Did you pay the politicians who thirty years ago decided that it was a good idea to see if those chemicals were safe or not? Did you pay for the medical treatment of the citizens who had to die for someone to stand up and say "hey, maybe this whole tomato business is worth checking out?". Did you pay for the petition that person started to send to the politician?

When you went on the medical school interview that opened the door to your future profession did you use the GPS on your phone to find the school? Google maps perhaps? Did you personally pay for the space program that led to GPS satellites being launched into space so you could use accurate GPS in your daily life? I imagine of the at-most 10 years you have been paying taxes that the less than $0.02 / tax dollar contribution really paid for the bulk of those satellites not to mention their maintenance and the teams currently working to improve them or make them more accurate.

What a joke. Society is incrementally built up. Nobody has lived long enough and paid enough taxes to adequately pay for every luxury that has been afforded them. Unless you have been living in some dirt shack on a random island somewhere on the planet, you owe society a whole lot.

Does that mean you should dedicate your life to paying for those things and never make a single dollar? NO!!! Because you deserve all of those things. Many of those things are your right as a citizen. Those rights are worth protecting. You didn't choose to use many of those services. Collectively people decided that it was a good thing for you to have those services and only expects you to pay a small fraction of the cost of maintaining them for future generations. Society issued a contract with you, a contract that you agreed to live by. This is because things like "responsibility" and "duty" and "rights" are more important motives than profit. If all there was was profit we would just be paying eachother constantly and nobody would have anything to their name, much less anything of substance like an interstate highway system or medical care.

 

[deleted480308]

But you didn't. When you went to the grocery store and you paid for the tomatoes did you also pay for the roads that got you there? No, your great grandparents probably did with their taxes. Them and all other 80 something year olds probably, depending on how old your community is. When you paid for the tomatoes you may have also paid for the transportation cost of those tomatoes but did you pay the scientists who developed the treatments that helped those tomatoes be fat and plump and free of bugs and dangerous microbes? Did you pay for the researchers who made sure those chemicals werent killing you? Did you pay the politicians who thirty years ago decided that it was a good idea to see if those chemicals were safe or not? Did you pay for the medical treatment of the citizens who had to die for someone to stand up and say "hey, maybe this whole tomato business is worth checking out?". Did you pay for the petition that person started to send to the politician?

When you went on the medical school interview that opened the door to your future profession did you use the GPS on your phone to find the school? Google maps perhaps? Did you personally pay for the space program that led to GPS satellites being launched into space so you could use accurate GPS in your daily life? I imagine of the at-most 10 years you have been paying taxes that the less than $0.02 / tax dollar contribution really paid for the bulk of those satellites not to mention their maintenance and the teams currently working to improve them or make them more accurate.

What a joke. Society is incrementally built up. Nobody has lived long enough and paid enough taxes to adequately pay for every luxury that has been afforded them. Unless you have been living in some dirt shack on a random island somewhere on the planet, you owe society a whole lot.

Does that mean you should dedicate your life to paying for those things and never make a single dollar? NO!!! Because you deserve all of those things. Many of those things are your right as a citizen. Those rights are worth protecting. You didn't choose to use many of those services. Collectively people decided that it was a good thing for you to have those services and only expects you to pay a small fraction of the cost of maintaining them for future generations. Society issued a contract with you, a contract that you agreed to live by. This is because things like "responsibility" and "duty" and "rights" are more important motives than profit. If all there was was profit we would just be paying eachother constantly and nobody would have anything to their name, much less anything of substance like an interstate highway system or medical care.

You really don't know much about economics if you think capitalism leads no one has anything.

 

[Mad Jack]

I call bull---- on the implication that somehow we owe something beside a job well done for our pay to society. If my home builder sucks, that house falls on me and I die...but I don't think my builder has to have some altruistic feelings for me. They do a good job, I pay them well. The same thing goes for those that prepare food, those that build planes, bridge builders, etc etc....

It's a fallacy that profit is a bad motive.

Being a physician is becoming a member of a centuries old profession, which has always had certain standards for ethics, altruism, and behavior. The oath most of us take upon starting medical school demands a higher standard of us, and most ethical guidelines do as well. Feel free to read both the ancient and modern Hippocratic oaths, the AMA ethics statement, your own school's ethical guidelines for acting as a physician, your state medical board's ethical position statement, etc. Being in-line with the expected behavior, altruism, and other traditional components of physician ethics is a requirement, not an optional component, of the selection process. While some people may lie their way through, the possession of the qualities that make an ethical and honorable physician are a key component of the selection process.

You're not a plumber. You're a member of one of a true profession. You have volunteered to sacrifice and live by an ethical and moral code to remain a member of said profession, with roots that stretch back literally thousands of years. You can't just say "screw all that, I do what I want."

 

[Lucca]

You really don't know much about economics if you think capitalism leads no one has anything.

You really don't know enough about capitalism if you think those are the economics that run this planet. If this were a truly capitalist society then money would still be under a gold standard. Money today is only worth someone because a bunch of people decided it should be. The ability to have production and trade the means of production - the fundamental principle of capitalism - did not build roads or schools or healthcare systems. It did not build governments. It did not build armies. To live a life where you feel that isn't true is just a sham.

 

[deleted393595]

I don't know about profit being inherently bad but it certainly isn't enough. If profit is the only compensation to be expected then we could never actually pay society back dollar for dollar for what we take from them. We drive on society's rods. We were born in society's hospitals. We go to society's schools. Society tells us that our money has value. Society gives us our property back if it is taken from us; society tells us our ownership means something. Society values the contracts we make between one another. Society gives us a place to sleep and learn while we learn how to be doctors. Society's public hospitals let us practice and make mistakes that will sometimes kill and maim others due to our own ignorance or inability. In financial terms, all we really do is take from society. The paycheck we receive afterwards if everyone shared your view would be very very small.

 

[Lucca]

Lol I'm not describing some socialist utopia. I'm describing the US right now, today.

 

[deleted393595]

The ability to have production and trade the means of production - the fundamental principle of capitalism - did not build roads or schools or healthcare systems.

200 years of economics - starting with Adam Smith - disagrees with you.

 

[Lucca]

200 years of economics - starting with Adam Smith - disagrees with you.

A very clever thing to say but we're living on the coat-tails of the Great Society and the New Deal. Even the capitalism that fueled the growth of the united states has depended on the social underpinnings of intellectual property law, military expenses, academic research, and representative democracy. Noneconomic social forces that are required for the orderly functioning of society, not command economy principles.

 

[deleted480308]

Being a physician is becoming a member of a centuries old profession, which has always had certain standards for ethics, altruism, and behavior. The oath most of us take upon starting medical school demands a higher standard of us, and most ethical guidelines do as well. Feel free to read both the ancient and modern Hippocratic oaths, the AMA ethics statement, your own school's ethical guidelines for acting as a physician, your state medical board's ethical position statement, etc. Being in-line with the expected behavior, altruism, and other traditional components of physician ethics is a requirement, not an optional component, of the selection process. While some people may lie their way through, the possession of the qualities that make an ethical and honorable physician are a key component of the selection process.

You're not a plumber. You're a member of one of a true profession. You have volunteered to sacrifice and live by an ethical and moral code to remain a member of said profession, with roots that stretch back literally thousands of years. You can't just say "screw all that, I do what I want."

the hippocratic oath also forbade abortion and surgery

There is no requirement that a lack of economic drive is needed for ethics. Ethics is honestly and competently performing your duties as paid or voluntarily donated. As long as my school will send me home for not paying, they can save the lectures about how often I must be charitable. My charitable responsibilities are part of my religious system and completely irrelevant to my profession

 

[deleted393595]

A very clever thing to say but we're living on the coat-tails of the Great Society and the New Deal. Even the capitalism that fueled the growth of the united states has depended on the social underpinnings of intellectual property law, military expenses, academic research, and representative democracy. Noneconomic social forces that are required for the orderly functioning of society, not command economy principles.

Wut? The New Deal + the Great Society initiative were attempts at top-down command economies. Look up TVA.

 

[Lucca]

Wut? Did you even pass high school history? The New Deal + the Great Society initiative were attempts at top-down command economies. Look up TVA.

And what is your post even saying?

sb247 claimed that he paid for everything society has given him, which is simply untrue as I was pointing out.

Please reread my post. "Noneconomic social forces" is clearly referring to intellectual property law, military expenses, academic research and representative democracy. You know, the things that exist that allow for things like "money" and "property" to exist so that we can use them? I mentioned the New Deal and Great Society to point out that the US we live in has not been totally built by Capitalism. I really dont understand what yall's problem is. Or were all roads and schools and hospitals built by private companies using private capital in the US and I never noticed.

 

[itsogre]

Unrelated question, since this thread has careened off topic anyway.

med school in Texas is cheap partly because of oil revenues, right? Are Texans trading their environment for reduced tuition basically? Please no obfuscating answers.

 

[Lawpy]

ITT, we see a shift from discussing how medical school admissions became ultracompetitive to a strange debate on how capitalism is a flawed economic system and why socialism is the only adequate means to repair the healthcare system.

@Lucca despite your wildly flawed arguments and lack of understanding on basic economic principles (and history), i will only address one of your posts.

Lol I'm not describing some socialist utopia. I'm describing the US right now, today.

Cuba is far from a socialist utopia in the post you responded. Cuba, like Russia and China, are state capitalist countries. Socialist utopian countries are like those of France, Greece and Scandinavian countries. Which is strange since France is having major economic issues (and Hollande will seem to lose terribly in reelection) and Greece is getting demolished by creditors and socialist hardliners.

This leaves Scandinavian countries, which you, Bernie Sanders and hoplessly optimistic socialists seem to love and adore just by praising its superficial healthcare luxuries without looking at massive costs behind the scene. Even then, Norway and Sweden rejected joining the Eurozone, which is arguably the most "socialist"/cooperative union formed, due to their vested capitalist interests.

Tl;dr: socialism, by observation, is a flawed experiment. State capitalism is what is repairing the mistakes, which in itself is inefficient because of government intrusion.

 

[deleted480308]

sb247 claimed that he paid for everything society has given him, which is simply untrue as I was pointing out.

Please reread my post. "Noneconomic social forces" is clearly referring to intellectual property law, military expenses, academic research and representative democracy. You know, the things that exist that allow for things like "money" and "property" to exist so that we can use them? I mentioned the New Deal and Great Society to point out that the US we live in has not been totally built by Capitalism. I really dont understand what yall's problem is. Or were all roads and schools and hospitals built by private companies using private capital in the US and I never noticed.

You are saying that when I buy a taco, I need to thank society at large for buying me a taco because I didn't pay for the bricks the store was built from.......which means you don't know economics

 

[Lucca]

Unrelated question, since this thread has careened off topic anyway.

med school in Texas is cheap partly because of oil revenues, right? Are Texans trading their environment for reduced tuition basically? Please no obfuscating answers.

You asked an obfuscating question. Your statement begs the question that oil revenues correlate directly with trading their environment. That is not necessarily the case whether or not it is a direct consequence.

What is certainly true is that the Texas government uses revenues from the property it owns thanks to oil companies to fund education and healthcare expenses in lieu of increasing taxes or implementing an income tax.

 

[md-2020]

My financial economics professors from undergrad would have a field day with this thread.

 

[itsogre]

You asked an obfuscating question. Your statement begs the question that oil revenues correlate directly with trading their environment. That is not necessarily the case whether or not it is a direct consequence.

What is certainly true is that the Texas government uses revenues from the property it owns thanks to oil companies to fund education and healthcare expenses in lieu of increasing taxes or implementing an income tax.

I don't think it was obfuscating, but yea I see.

 

[Lucca]

ITT, we see a shift from discussing how medical school admissions became ultracompetitive to a strange debate on how capitalism is a flawed economic system and why socialism is the only adequate means to repair the healthcare system.

@Lucca despite your wildly flawed arguments and lack of understanding on basic economic principles (and history), i will only address one of your posts.



Cuba is far from a socialist utopia in the post you responded. Cuba, like Russia and China, are state capitalist countries. Socialist utopian countries are like those of France, Greece and Scandinavian countries. Which is strange since France is having major economic issues (and Hollande will seem to lose terribly in reelection) and Greece is getting demolished by creditors and socialist hardliners.

This leaves Scandinavian countries, which you, Bernie Sanders and hoplessly optimistic socialists seem to love and adore just by praising its superficial healthcare luxuries without looking at massive costs behind the scene. Even then, Norway and Sweden rejected joining the Eurozone, which is arguably the most "socialist"/cooperative union formed, due to their vested capitalist interests.

Tl;dr: socialism, by observation, is a flawed experiment. State capitalism is what is repairing the mistakes, which in itself is inefficient because of government intrusion.

I really like how this has become a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism when all I did was describe to sb247 the state of the US right now. In that social programs have allowed him luxuries and he has not paid for them in full amount because others did in his place and society has agreed that this is a favorable arrangement.

What part of my argument is wildly flawed? What dont I understand about economics? What dont I understand about history? How is state capitalism repairing mistakes and how is it separate or different from federal capitalism repairing mistakes? Please make yourself more clear.

 

[Mad Jack]

the hippocratic oath also forbade abortion and surgery

There is no requirement that a lack of economic drive is needed for ethics. Ethics is honestly and competently performing your duties as paid or voluntarily donated. As long as my school will send me home for not paying, they can save the lectures about how often I must be charitable. My charitable responsibilities are part of my religious system and completely irrelevant to my profession

If you can't comply with the ethical responsibilities of being a physician, you should not be selected to become one in the first place. Yeah, there is a lot of financial sacrifice to join, and yeah, we should be remunerated for the skills that we provide, but with great power comes great responsibility. That's why they should actively recruit physicians that help meet medical ethical goals, such as providing access, which is one of the principle statements of both many schools' missions, but also many state medical boards and the AMA. Here's the AMA's medical ethics statement, for instance:

Principles of medical ethics
I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

My state and school have very similar statements. These are their chosen ethical guidelines, and they should do their best to bring in people that embody them.

 

[Lucca]

You are saying that when I buy a taco, I need to thank society at large for buying me a taco because I didn't pay for the bricks the store was built from.......which means you don't know economics

Omg I'm not saying you have to I explicitly said that at the end of my post. I said you DONT have to because society agreed that you don't. Otherwise what is keeping society from saying "no you cant play in our sandbox unless you give us all your dough" . I understand economics perfectly well. I understand how business buy and sell their goods and pay for services.

 

[Lawpy]

I really like how this has become a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism when all I did was describe to sb247 the state of the US right now. In that social programs have allowed him luxuries and he has not paid for them in full amount because others did in his place and society has agreed that this is a favorable arrangement.

What part of my argument is wildly flawed? What dont I understand about economics? What dont I understand about history? How is state capitalism repairing mistakes and how is it separate or different from federal capitalism repairing mistakes? Please make yourself more clear.

Simply put, I'm not sure you know exactly what is happening in the modern state of affairs, the types and consequences of economic systems, and the apparent importance of the government in mediating "noneconomic" social transactions. But that's just an aside since the thread is already off-topic, and all i'm seeing are a bunch of emotional appeals and strawmans against realistic economic arguments.

I suppose the discussion can be carried on elsewhere, since i was more focused on dismissing your post to ElCapone's visual example.

 

[deleted480308]

If you can't comply with the surgical responsibilities of being a physician, you should not be selected to become one in the first place. Yeah, there is a lot of financial sacrifice to join, and yeah, we should be remunerated for the skills that we provide, but with great power comes great responsibility. That's why they should actively recruit physicians that help meet medical ethical goals, such as providing access, which is one of the principle statements of both many schools' missions, but also many state medical boards and the AMA. Here's the AMA's medical ethics statement, for instance:

Principles of medical ethics
I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

My state and school have very similar statements. These are their chosen ethical guidelines, and they should do their best to bring in people that embody them.

9 doesn't work...it implies everyone can have services without paying but won't come out and say it. And if people can have services without paying there are only two methods to accomplish that. Either, they can demand my services without payment (slavery) or I'm supporting them stealing from others to cover the money I want to treat them. Neither are ok.

 

[Lucca]

Simply put, I'm not sure you know exactly what is happening in the modern state of affairs, the types and consequences of economic systems, and the apparent importance of the government in mediating "noneconomic" social transactions. But that's just an aside since the thread is already off-topic, and all i'm seeing are a bunch of emotional appeals and strawmans against realistic economic arguments.

I suppose the discussion can be carried on elsewhere, since i was more focused on dismissing your post to ElCapone's visual example.

I'm willing to have a discussion about this over PM because I frankly am interested in learning about how I dont understand the modern state of affairs.

 

[aegistitan]

This isn't specific to just medicine... it applies across the board to all professions...

 

[deleted393595]

9 doesn't work...it implies everyone can have services without paying but won't come out and say it. And if people can have services without paying there are only two methods to accomplish that. Either, they can demand my services without payment (slavery) or I'm supporting them stealing from others to cover the money I want to treat them. Neither are ok.

Not necessarily. It implies that healthcare access shouldn't be artificially constrained. If a patient can't obtain treatment from you (because your price is too high), your patient should be able to consult with alternative physicians in that area, who can offer a lower price or work for free (one of the great things about our profession).

I'm willing to have a discussion about this over PM because I frankly am interested in learning about how I dont understand the modern state of affairs.

Your assumption is that society and the State are the same thing, which is a flawed perspective.

 

[deleted480308]

Not necessarily. It implies that supply shouldn't be limited. If a patient can't obtain treatment from you (because your price is too high), your patient should be able to consult with alternative physicians in that area, who can offer a lower price or work for free (one of the great things about our profession).



Your assumption is that society and the State are the same thing, which is a flawed perspective.

I agree that's what should happen...but the ama is absolutely implying universal coverage regardless of finances

 

[deleted393595]

I agree that's what should happen...but the ama is absolutely implying universal coverage regardless of finances

Good thing the AMA doesn't represent most doctors 😉

 

[LizzyM]

I agree that's what should happen...but the ama is absolutely implying universal coverage regardless of finances

Are they or are they saying that everyone should be able to access medical care: physicians should not discriminate against.... insert any group here. By law the US government prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion. But the AMA would, I believe , frown on barring access to medical care based on characteristics that are not protected by federal law such as sexual orientation (not a protected class), obesity, tobacco use, and so forth. This is not saying how it is to be paid for but that door should be open to all an not exclude groups of people.

 

[efle]

ITT, we see a shift from discussing how medical school admissions became ultracompetitive to a strange debate on how capitalism is a flawed economic system and why socialism is the only adequate means to repair the healthcare system.

@Lucca despite your wildly flawed arguments and lack of understanding on basic economic principles (and history), i will only address one of your posts.



Cuba is far from a socialist utopia in the post you responded. Cuba, like Russia and China, are state capitalist countries. Socialist utopian countries are like those of France, Greece and Scandinavian countries. Which is strange since France is having major economic issues (and Hollande will seem to lose terribly in reelection) and Greece is getting demolished by creditors and socialist hardliners.

This leaves Scandinavian countries, which you, Bernie Sanders and hoplessly optimistic socialists seem to love and adore just by praising its superficial healthcare luxuries without looking at massive costs behind the scene. Even then, Norway and Sweden rejected joining the Eurozone, which is arguably the most "socialist"/cooperative union formed, due to their vested capitalist interests.

Tl;dr: socialism, by observation, is a flawed experiment. State capitalism is what is repairing the mistakes, which in itself is inefficient because of government intrusion.

You've clearly got no idea what you're talking about. Places like Scandinavia have much more manageable costs than we do, not worse. For some example more grounded in reality look at what has happened historically when industry is given total freedoms

 

[deleted393595]

Places like Scandinavia have much more manageable costs than we do, not worse.

For some example more grounded in reality look at what has happened historically when industry is given total freedoms

That's a straw man. He never advocated for laissez faire.

 

[Lucca]

Not necessarily. It implies that healthcare access shouldn't be artificially constrained. If a patient can't obtain treatment from you (because your price is too high), your patient should be able to consult with alternative physicians in that area, who can offer a lower price or work for free (one of the great things about our profession).



Your assumption is that society and the State are the same thing, which is a flawed perspective.

A flawed perspective you say? What is a representative democracy if not a state created to represent a society? What, exactly, is the flaw in that perspective that leads you to believe I've been going on about socialism when I've actually been going on about the way a society is organized?

sb247s initial comment had to do with not understanding why we owe society anything but a job well done and that profit is the only thing to be expected. I explained that this view is wrong because if profit were the only thing to be exchanged then we could never pay society back for everything we owe it that we have been given. This includes things given by the state, which i include in my examples, and less tangible things not given by the state like parents, mentorship, teachers, and a nurturing environment. It was not about economic systems. He used the word "socialist crap" to describe what I was saying but all I was doing was describing exactly what benefits he had derived from society - and that includes the state - not necessarily what he gained from the government. I then went on to explain that this did not mean he owed society anything or should feel that way because what he gained were deemed to be his right and to make him pay in such a way would be irresponsible. What does that have to do with socialism? That is a description of a social contract that exists because society allows it to, the existence of a state is a consequence rather than a cause of that contract.

 

[deleted480308]

Are they or are they saying that everyone should be able to access medical care: physicians should not discriminate against.... insert any group here. By law the US government prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion. But the AMA would, I believe , frown on barring access to medical care based on characteristics that are not protected by federal law such as sexual orientation (not a protected class), obesity, tobacco use, and so forth. This is not saying how it is to be paid for but that door should be open to all an not exclude groups of people.

Either I have completely misread every ama statement on the aca and expansion of medicaid or you are being coy here...

I'm willing to admit if I'm off here, are you saying the ama doesn't push health care as a right regardless of ability to pay?

 

[LizzyM]

Either I have completely misread every ama statement on the aca and expansion of medicaid or you are being coy here...

I'm willing to admit if I'm off here, are you saying the ama doesn't push health care as a right regardless of ability to pay?

Well, the AMA may be in favor of expansion of access through increased government (taxpayer) spending but that may also explain why most physicians are not members of AMA, the tax burden would fall squarely on earners such as physicians. If so, this is much different than slavery or whatever other b.s. you were spouting earlier today. (taxation is not "stealing")

 

[deleted480308]

Well, the AMA may be in favor of expansion of access through increased government (taxpayer) spending but that may also explain why most physicians are not members of AMA, the tax burden would fall squarely on earners such as physicians. If so, this is much different than slavery or whatever other b.s. you were spouting earlier today. (taxation is not "stealing")

The government can't pay for me if I need something. All the government can do is take someone else's money and use it for me. When the government only gets that money by threatening to send police to take it....it's theft.

I can't take your stuff ethically just because I outnumber you with others (i.e. 51% of voters) any more than I can take your stuff ethically just because I overpower you.

 

[Dral]

I got accepted (to a top 25 nonetheless) in 2006 without a single hour of shadowing, and maybe 40 or so hours of volunteering in a pharmacy in a hospital (minimal to no patient contact).

So good extracurriculars
Non-trad with science based PhD before applying
3.88 - 3.89 GPA
37 MCAT (third attempt...scored 29 and 30 when I took it in undergrad. The 37 was at the end of my PhD just before applying)
No pt contact or shadowing

Would I get in this year if I applied with the same?

That's not rhetorical. I'm curious to know based on opinion.

 

[gyngyn]

If a patient can't obtain treatment from you (because your price is too high), your patient should be able to consult with alternative physicians in that area, who can offer a lower price or work for free (one of the great things about our profession).

If you care for Medicare patients and accept Medicare as payment you may not charge less than what Medicare is paid for those services to others. In other words, it is a violation of federal contract to provide free care if you take Medicare.

 

[Dral]

If you care for Medicare patients and accept Medicare as payment you may not charge less than what Medicare is paid for those services.

Nor may one 'under code' for said services. That's basically just as illegal as over coding as far as I understand it.

 

[Stagg737]

I got accepted (to a top 25 nonetheless) in 2006 without a single hour of shadowing, and maybe 40 or so hours of volunteering in a pharmacy in a hospital (minimal to no patient contact).

So good extracurriculars
Non-trad with science based PhD before applying
3.88 - 3.89 GPA
37 MCAT (third attempt...scored 29 and 30 when I took it in undergrad. The 37 was at the end of my PhD just before applying)
No pt contact or shadowing

Would I get in this year if I applied with the same?

That's not rhetorical. I'm curious to know based on opinion.

Obviously you're much farther along than I am, but you make an interesting point. Based on GPA and MCAT alone, I'd say you'd at least get a lot of strong looks. I don't think having minimal/no shadowing hours is a complete application killer, especially with your stats. However, having 0 pt contact hours looks pretty darn bad as they're relatively easy to get. If you could convey that you are not particularly interested in treating patients and are hoping to center your career on research you might be able to get away with it, though you certainly wouldn't be considered 'ideal' at many places.

Also, what do you mean by "So good extracurriculars"? All I can picture now is Doge in a white coat...

 

[LizzyM]

The government can't pay for me if I need something. All the government can do is take someone else's money and use it for me. When the government only gets that money by threatening to send police to take it....it's theft.

I can't take your stuff ethically just because I outnumber you with others (i.e. 51% of voters) any more than I can take your stuff ethically just because I overpower you.

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.