Medical School Discrimination

[deleted393595]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[whatever5]

If you don't think that people deserve access to healthcare, it makes you a ****ty person, but if you're smart enough not to tell the wrong people that you should be fine.

 

[deleted407021]

Lol, no. I doubt that you have any reason to be concerned.

We def. needed a politically charged thread though, so thx.

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

Lol you should see the amount of conservative doctors. You'll be fine as long as you don't kill anybody or be overly obnoxious about your political opinion.

 

[NorthOfBroad]

Is this supposed to be ironic?

 

[Brawndo2016]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

As the first response to this serves to open a door....can you share your differentiation between "right" to healthcare versus access?

 

[medicalCPA]

If SDN is anything to go by, your opinions are incredibly common among physicians and medical students, so you'll be fine.

 

[piii]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

what? I don't even know who you are lol

 

[Goro]

Stay away from Stanford, Yale, UCSF and Touro-CA.

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

 

[TBV]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

Oh f*ck yeah you should be concerned. I too don't think healthcare is a right and I don't think food is a right once you hit adulthood. You're better off sitting on those beliefs in school. At least where I am I'd be eaten alive for letting that slip.

 

[TBV]

If you don't think that people deserve access to healthcare, it makes you a ****ty person, but if you're smart enough not to tell the wrong people that you should be fine.

access to healthcare =/= healthcare

 

[deleted393595]

As the first response to this serves to open a door....can you share your differentiation between "right" to healthcare versus access?

Sure. I believe that the govt ought not be involved in financing healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using SDN mobile

 

[whatever5]

access to healthcare =/= healthcare

What's your point?

 

[Brawndo2016]

Sure. I believe that the govt ought not be involved in financing healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using SDN mobile

Well, based on this, I personally do not believe you are a ***tty person. Liberal attacks generally have a "labeling"component. Just an observation.

 

[deleted393595]

Also, I'm chuckling a bit at the irony of you being sensitive and concerned about discrimination from people who you believe to be overly sensitive and concerned about discrimination. Perhaps we should establish a safe space for conservative med students? (note: this is totally in jest)

Haha good observation The true irony though lies with those students, who are attacking the free speech rights of others in the name of "victimhood"

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

Sure. I believe that the govt ought not be involved in financing healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using SDN mobile

I don't think the government should mandate you to have health insurance. If you don't want it, that's your decision. You should not have to pay the penalty of whatever the tax is currently. Now on the other side of it, healthcare should be accessible for anybody who does need it. There's a fine line between the two.

 

[sovereign0]

If someone hasn't personally had the experience of not having access to healthcare, or is unable to really empathize with being in that situation, I really don't see how they could formulate an informed opinion on the matter. In my experience I've seen that a lot of the push-back on the topic comes from children from affluent families who are just worried about part of their future paycheck going to healthcare for "the lazy poor people and immigrants".

In that vein, in one of my more recent interviewers, my interviewer (gruff, middle-aged, serious kinda MD) told me that he didn't think that money was a barrier to healthcare. Since I was already accepted elsewhere I didnt bother to stay politically neutral and ended up having a... lively... discussion with him.

 

[TallPreMed]

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

@ElCapone, believe it or not, some of us fire-breathing liberals enjoy having people like you around. Keep being yourself. I'm glad we're friends!

 

[Nietzschelover]

It's probably no secret on SDN that I'm a libertarian-conservative: I don't believe healthcare should be a right. I don't believe government has any role in dictating what women should do with their bodies. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be spending itself into a fiscal cliff.

But since I'm starting med school in the Fall, there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

No. You're probably quietly very much in the majority (although I wildly disagree with you). These are the kind of stances that are very easy to maintain when you are raised and/or live in a place like Vermont (and thankfully Bernie is not one of those).

That said, please use your energy and intellect to get rid of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and lawyer groups waiting in the weeds to make millions off life-saving and innovative drugs as soon as there is one adverse reaction.

 

[EventualMD]

You're in medical school to become a doctor, not to run for office. You get one vote and are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.

 

[nRomaleos]

If someone hasn't personally had the experience of not having access to healthcare, or is unable to really empathize with being in that situation, I really don't see how they could formulate an informed opinion on the matter. In my experience I've seen that a lot of the push-back on the topic comes from children from affluent families who are just worried about part of their future paycheck going to healthcare for "the lazy poor people and immigrants".

In that vein, in one of my more recent interviewers, my interviewer (gruff, middle-aged, serious kinda MD) told me that he didn't think that money was a barrier to healthcare. Since I was already accepted elsewhere I bother to stay politically neutral and ended up having a... lively... discussion with him.

**clap clap**

 

[URHere]

Honestly, I see no reason why this should ever come up. You're going to medical school to learn, and the first thing you learn is to tread carefully and not make unnecessary waves. Talking about politics or anything inflammatory is risky. You will work with some physicians who believe the exact opposite of what you do. You will treat some patients who are bigoted, ignorant, inflammatory, or some magical combination of all 3. In both cases, you need to know when to keep your mouth shut. If you can do that, you'll be fine.

 

[deleted393595]

If someone hasn't personally had the experience of not having access to healthcare, or is unable to really empathize with being in that situation, I really don't see how they could formulate an informed opinion on the matter. In my experience I've seen that a lot of the push-back on the topic comes from children from affluent families who are just worried about part of their future paycheck going to healthcare for "the lazy poor people and immigrants".

In that vein, in one of my more recent interviewers, my interviewer (gruff, middle-aged, serious kinda MD) told me that he didn't think that money was a barrier to healthcare. Since I was already accepted elsewhere I bother to stay politically neutral and ended up having a... lively... discussion with him.

I grew up without access to healthcare, and it was a major reason why I chose to go into medicine. I started out as a liberal, but when I realized how government intervention had made healthcare so expensive that the only way to access it was through insurance or government aid, I became a libertarian.

@ElCapone, believe it or not, some of us fire-breathing liberals enjoy having people like you around. Keep being yourself. I'm glad we're friends!

This is why I <3 you man

No. You're probably quietly very much in the majority (although I wildly disagree with you). These are the kind of stances that are very easy to maintain when you are raised and/or live in a place like Vermont (and thankfully Bernie is not one of those).

That said, please use your energy and intellect to get rid of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and lawyer groups waiting in the weeds to make millions off life-saving and innovative drugs as soon as there is one adverse reaction.

Will do

 

[allantois]

C'mon even Trump gets this right.

 

[JustAPhD]

Don't wear your political beliefs on your sleeve and you'll be fine.

 

[Mansamusa]

I actually do not think that healthcare is a right either. I think it is a luxury. But I think any decent person would want to (and should) share this luxury if possible.

Edit: And, if by discrimination you mean people will disagree with you, then yes. But there will always be someone who disagrees with you on any matter

 

[Planes2Doc]

The most important thing is knowing to keep your mouth shut, or tell people what they want to hear.

For example, I have never met anyone that works for the money. Or at least that's how they try to come off.

 

[Med Ed]

there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether I will be discriminated against in med school for not being a liberal (especially in this PC and microaggression climate).

Should I be concerned?

Depends. Can you last longer than two hours in a room full of strangers without being labeled "that libertarian a-hole"?

 

[Nietzschelover]

I actually do not think that healthcare is a right either. I think it is a luxury. But I think any decent person would want to (and should) share this luxury if possible.

Edit: And, if by discrimination you mean people will disagree with you, then yes. But there will always be someone who disagrees with you on any matter

Do you believe healthcare is a "luxury" from birth to age 18?

 

[Lucca]

We will convert you yet @ElCapone

 

[medicalCPA]

I don't think the government should mandate you to have health insurance. If you don't want it, that's your decision. You should not have to pay the penalty of whatever the tax is currently. Now on the other side of it, healthcare should be accessible for anybody who does need it. There's a fine line between the two.

If we take this to its logical conclusion, those who are otherwise able to buy health insurance but choose not to buy it should be responsible for the cost of their healthcare without any assistance whatsoever. So if they get in an accident, for example, and require multiple expensive surgeries, they should be able to pay for all of them, or get the amount of surgeries they can actually pay for. If they are bankrupted by their healthcare costs and become homeless, they should not be given any assistance whatsoever, since their circumstances are largely their own fault.

I would not want to live in that kind of society.

 

[mcloaf]

Haha good observation The true irony though lies with those students, who are attacking the free speech rights of others in the name of "victimhood"

I think you're conflating things here; people are perfectly allowed to consider you a douche based on your views while still thinking you should be allowed to speak unrestricted.

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

If we take this to its logical conclusion, those who are otherwise able to buy health insurance but choose not to buy it should be responsible for the cost of their healthcare without any assistance whatsoever. So if they get in an accident, for example, and require multiple expensive surgeries, they should be able to pay for all of them, or get the amount of surgeries they can actually pay for. If they are bankrupted by their healthcare costs and become homeless, they should not be given any assistance whatsoever, since their circumstances are largely their own fault.

I would not want to live in that kind of society.

No I don't either, but there comes a point where government intervention goes too far. When I did my internship in Public Health recently, we promoted a diabetes prevention plan that went through people's insurances (it was automatically approved as long as you had insurance since it was still in a trial period). Many many many many many people of low to middle SES said they did not want the additional cost of healthcare which is why they did not have the insurance. Many of them also lashed out on having to pay that extra for healthcare per year. Those people who work 2 jobs, are single parents and have kids to take care of at home, their income is limited enough as is, according to them, the added cost of healthcare meant cutting costs elsewhere for them including food, clothing ect. The one mother said she couldn't even buy her kid a winter coat this year because of how scrapped for cash they are.

Also, government insurance isn't necessarily "good" insurance. We have a patient in the cardiology office I work at where she has government insurance and she had dizziness ect and they wanted to start her on blood thinners. The cardiologist wanted to CT-head to r/o a brain bleed, and the CT came back inconclusive/indeterminate. So the next step was the MRI which was even indicated on the CT-report by the radiologist. When we filed in the order, we got a call from the insurance company saying they wouldn't cover it bc of the recent CT-head. They deemed it that her 3-4% chance of developing a stroke because of her A.fib did not warrant an MRI to start her on anti-coag therapy. There have been other patients where this has happened, whether they wouldn't cover certain labs, procedures, tests even when warranted.

 

[XxThaDoggxX]

Did you have the gall to tell your interviewer these opinions? Or did you politely smile and lie your @$$ off?

 

[medicalCPA]

No I don't either, but there comes a point where government intervention goes too far. When I did my internship in Public Health recently, we promoted a diabetes prevention plan that went through people's insurances (it was automatically approved as long as you had insurance since it was still in a trial period). Many many many many many people of low to middle SES said they did not want the additional cost of healthcare which is why they did not have the insurance. Many of them also lashed out on having to pay that extra for healthcare per year. Those people who work 2 jobs, are single parents and have kids to take care of at home, their income is limited enough as is, according to them, the added cost of healthcare meant cutting costs elsewhere for them including food, clothing ect. The one mother said she couldn't even buy her kid a winter coat this year because of how scrapped for cash they are.

Also, government insurance isn't necessarily "good" insurance. We have a patient in the cardiology office I work at where she has government insurance and she had dizziness ect and they wanted to start her on blood thinners. The cardiologist wanted to CT-head to r/o a brain bleed, and the CT came back inconclusive/indeterminate. So the next step was the MRI which was even indicated on the CT-report by the radiologist. When we filed in the order, we got a call from the insurance company saying they wouldn't cover it bc of the recent CT-head. They deemed it that her 3-4% chance of developing a stroke because of her A.fib did not warrant an MRI to start her on anti-coag therapy. There have been other patients where this has happened, whether they wouldn't cover certain labs, procedures, tests even when warranted.

I won't reply any further, not because I agree with you, and not because I don't think your ideas should be challenged, but I don't have either the time or the inclination to begin an online discussion which will change no one's mind.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Also, government insurance isn't necessarily "good" insurance. We have a patient in the cardiology office I work at where she has government insurance and she had dizziness ect and they wanted to start her on blood thinners. The cardiologist wanted to CT-head to r/o a brain bleed, and the CT came back inconclusive/indeterminate. So the next step was the MRI which was even indicated on the CT-report by the radiologist. When we filed in the order, we got a call from the insurance company saying they wouldn't cover it bc of the recent CT-head. They deemed it that her 3-4% chance of developing a stroke because of her A.fib did not warrant an MRI to start her on anti-coag therapy. There have been other patients where this has happened, whether they wouldn't cover certain labs, procedures, tests even when warranted.

Definitely agree with the insurance company on that one. If the CT head doesn't show an acute bleed, an MRI is not warranted to start anti-coagulation. Either start anti-coagulation or repeat a CT Head for a fraction of the cost. BTW, a Radiologist stating "MRI can be considered" doesn't mean that it is indicated. Furthermore, an "insurance company" isn't government insurance, so I'm not sure how this example would support your argument even if it made sense from a medical standpoint.

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

Definitely agree with the insurance company on that one. If the CT head doesn't show an acute bleed, an MRI is not warranted to start anti-coagulation. Either start anti-coagulation or repeat a CT Head for a fraction of the cost. BTW, a Radiologist stating "MRI can be considered" doesn't mean that it is indicated. Furthermore, an "insurance company" isn't government insurance, so I'm not sure how this example would support your argument even if it made sense from a medical standpoint.

The read verbatim said "unable to discern whether hemorrhage vs artifact. MRI needed to further categorize lesion". You do understand the implication of starting somebody on anti-coag if they could even potentially have a brain bleed right? Especially because she was symptomatic with dizziness and nausea? Also, repeat the CT-head? Yes because given her age of being only 23 years old, and the fact that she's already received 3 CT's, bomb the girl with even more radiation.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you don't think that people deserve access to healthcare, it makes you a ****ty person, but if you're smart enough not to tell the wrong people that you should be fine.

To say one is a ****ty person because they are not on board with universal healthcare kind of neglects the complexity and nuance of the issue. I believe people should have access to care, but do not believe the government or a universal health care system is the best way to ensure access to high quality care, for instance.

 

[Mad Jack]

Also inb4 thread gets dumped like radioactive waste on the SPF.

 

[whatever5]

To say one is a ****ty person because they are not on board with universal healthcare kind of neglects the complexity and name of the issue. I believe people should have access to care, but do not believe the government or a universal health care system is the best way to ensure access to high quality care, for instance.

OP said he does not believe people have the right to healthcare. He did not say he believes people have the right to healthcare, but he that systems we've come up with are a poor way of going about it.

 

[Mad Jack]

OP said he does not believe people have the right to healthcare. He did not say he believes people have the right to healthcare, but he that systems we've come up with are a poor way of going about it.

People should not have a right to healthcare. They should have a right to access healthcare. Those are very different things, that's the nuance you are missing.

 

[whatever5]

People should not have a right to healthcare. They should have a right to access healthcare. Those are very different things, that's the nuance you are missing.

Could you explain the difference? I don't understand it.

 

[Mad Jack]

Could you explain the difference? I don't understand it.

You should be able to access care. Whether you can afford that care or not is an entirely separate issue. And of course, you should have the right to access emergency care.

 

[whatever5]

You should be able to access care. Whether you can afford that care or not is an entirely separate issue. And of course, you should have the right to access emergency care.

In that case I still don't see a distinction. If everyone could afford it, there would be no barriers in accessing care.

 

[Lucca]

You should be able to access care. Whether you can afford that care or not is an entirely separate issue. And of course, you should have the right to access emergency care.

If you can't afford care then can you access it?

 

[kaydo525]

You should be able to access care. Whether you can afford that care or not is an entirely separate issue. And of course, you should have the right to access emergency care.

but being able to afford it falls under being able to access healthcare. So, can you elaborate further? I don't understand where people are coming from when they say that healthcare shouldn't be a right. Can someone explain their viewpoint.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you can't afford care then can you access it?

You have a right to access the care you can afford

Basically, I'll work for anyone that will pay me a reasonable wage. Don't want to pay me? I have the right to refuse to provide you with non-life saving care. You can't guarantee people access without trampling the rights of providers to refuse to provide care to those that can't pay them a wage they deem reasonable.

 

[Mad Jack]

but being able to afford it falls under being able to access healthcare. So, can you elaborate further? I don't understand where people are coming from when they say that healthcare shouldn't be a right. Can someone explain their viewpoint.

You have the same ability to access care as anyone else, so long as you have the money to do so. You aren't being discriminated against because of your skin color, language, or anything else- you have the right to not be denied access for care you can afford.

 

[kaydo525]

You have a right to access the care you can afford

Basically, I'll work for anyone that will pay me a reasonable wage. Don't want to pay me? I have the right to refuse to provide you with non-life saving care. You can't guarantee people access without trampling the rights of providers to refuse to provide care to those that can't pay them a wage they deem reasonable.

It seems like you're driven by money, so why medicine? Why not become a corporate lawyer or something? I'm not attacking, I'm just trying to understand.