Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You lost all credibility at #1. Surprised you even wrote that.
Any women that would care to chime in about being biologically/genetically/intrinsically less "scientific"???
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
You lost all credibility at #1. Surprised you even wrote that.
Any women that would care to chime in about being biologically/genetically/intrinsically less "scientific"???
I'm saying you can call it a right all you want, but the government has no way of forcing physicians to participate, so that right can in no way be guaranteed. When your rights require my participation to function, they don't really amount to much, do they?
I have no intention of ever participating in a government insurance program- the day I finish residency, I'm dropping Medicare/Medicaid participation like a bad habit on principle.
You have no evidence to support your position. You're arguing based on emotions that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. To make matters worse you're arguing that genetics don't influence anything - since when do genes not play a role in gender differences? I just shows how little you understand about the human body.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I read an article the other day that claimed men have outscored women as a group for the last ~30 years in every verbal and math section (looks pretty close in verbal with a larger gap in math) and that women consistently outscored men on the writing section. Here's the data from the college board.
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf
I'm not going to assign or deny causation to any one factor, because I really don't know. Just wanted to lay that data on the table.
I love Nietzsche too.
That is all.
OK, but why then do you think we are focusing so much on biological/genetic alleged differences, as opposed to highlighting other factors.
I'm reminded of Van Jones' brilliant point about Trump. Even if he disavows white supremacists why do the white supremacists like him so much?
There's some investment here (and I don't mean you per se) in biologic factors. You say there are many other factors, but for some reason this is the one we're talking about.
And I don't mean to argue. I'm actually very interested in your take when we get to these kinds of issues because I'm always a little surprised and I'm curious as to your thinking.
You'll be fine. There are a lot of conservatives in medical school, they're just usually not very vocal.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
You're letting your anger cloud your rationality.
To take one of the last poster's examples.....women have scored higher on verbal and lower on math for the past 30-40 years? My answer: Of Course! And that has very little to do with genetics and more why women culturally were more likely to be schoolteachers and nurses.
You're focusing so much on your "rights" that you can't see how others could have rights. Whether you can be required to do anything is a far different issue than whether all human beings deserve to have basic health care.
Point blank....do YOU believe men make for better physicians than women? Do you believe men have more "scientific" brains than women and for reasons that will hold for centuries to come?
Everyone should be able to walk into Ruth's Chris, I don't think you should be able to screw Ruth or Chris by not being able to pay for your steak.
I mean, you asked a question and I just gave a story to go with it. If the student was autistic to the point that teaching measures would be fruitless, I do actually think it's a waste of resources. I would be in favor of government sponsored daycares and adult daycares for severely disabled people because their parents need and deserve breaks, but I think spending educational resources on someone unable to learn would be a waste. And, when you actually see these students being taught, it's sick how they aren't able to just do the few things they can do to bring themselves joy since their teachers have to show that they are trying to make progress.
And I'm actually not anti-gov't at all. I'm anti-stupid. I think an ideal gov't would more tightly regulate many more areas than our's (like higher education and educational loans, putting caps on insurance companies prices, etc), but for some reason our gov't continually enacts policies that are the opposite of helpful.
So we have to remember and realize the following. We are focusing so much on biological factors because that's the topic that came up. ZedsDed brought it up, you quoted it, and this whole discussion ensued. Just because a topic is debated the most, doesnt mean it's oneof most relevance or one that explains much of society and what we see. Not at all, and that's important to realize. We're debating it as much as anything because it interests us, not becasue it carries some major implications in our society or is the main force explaining much of what happens. Hell, just remember how many 5 page threads we've had about MCAT retake discussions with our friend gyngyn which probably only really affect 5% of the applicant population. The topics we spend the most time debating are often ones of the least consequence.
You brought up earlier how easy it was for people in earlier eras just to bring up biological factors as reasons to discriminate(ie racism). Well there comes a point where we can place too much importance on class, family income, discrimination, low SES etc. And I think when I see some of these arguments(not really by you but in general) where people are suggesting the major gap in MCAT performance between URMS and non URMs is due to "SES status, poverty, family income/education etc" and not much else we are over simplifying things way too much. One thing Ive heard repeatedly when ADCOMs defend why Asians have lower acceptance rates is they make the generalization theyve seen Asians be poor interviewers. I always ask; why are people so reluctant to make such generalizations about other races even if they are negative? Biological factors are one of many explaining gaps and I dont know if you could argue something like "perceived differences in interviewing skill" are simply a product of social/cultural factors and that some characteristics are more likely to be inherited in some groups than others that make them more likely to be better interviewers. There is always a fine line between cultural and biological influences and I think we might be mixing them up a little bit andI bet there is a bit of overlap between what I consider "biological factors" and what you consider "cultural factors".
It's funny we've brought up the idea of men vs female. In many ways IMHO, if we were interested in an "affirmative action" that was most able to address the weaknesses of medicine currently, we would target increasing female representation instead of obsessing over URM representation(at least to the degree we do) with one reason amongst many others being that women are so much more likely to serve in areas we have a current shortage in such as OBGYN, psychiatry, family medicine etc. The idea that "URMS are more likely to serve URM populations" on the other hand isnt strongly supported by data despite what some claim(go through the AAMC reports if you are interested). So I have no idea why anybody might think we shouldnt admit women despite lower scores. In fact, Id argue quite hte contrary; medicine would be better served with more women and yes that would mean they represent the majority of the physicians in the US in all likelihood under such a situation.
And I never directly argued that "higher MCAT scores" correlate with better physicians. Hardly. I just have been saying this whole time that one of the factors behind "higher academic success" can have a biological origin potentially. And Ive argued that if we have an unequal representation, it isnt always just going to be due to "discrimination" and that that unequal representation can potentially have some level of merit and it is possible that a men/female who is more represented is more likely to have skills needed for that field. We've both said this and acknowledge it but "extremes" in discussions like these are very dangerous things and should be avoided.
Last edited:
Their rights are no more important than mine. There's a reason negative rights of physicians almost exclusively take precedent over positive rights of patients. Do what you want with the system, just don't expect the large number of us that are fiscal conservatives to be a part of it.
I do think culture is huge. Do any white male pre-meds/med students want to concede that Asians are "smarter." Are we more likely to emphasize genetics or culture in explaining (explaining away) test data advantages that Asians have? Not too long along women interested in mental health would be encouraged to pursue a MSW as opposed to a Ph.D. or MD? Why was that? Because becoming a psychiatrist would be "too hard" for a woman?
If we accept genetics differences as reasons (at all) for superiority where does that lead? We know where that leads.
If we accept genetics differences as reasons (at all) for superiority where does that lead? We know where that leads.
Well that's the problem and we kind of saw it in this thread. There is no room for moderation in topics like this. It's always extremes when taking positions of "does genetics influence our ability to succeed": if you think it doesnt you get labeled "out of touch". If you think it does, people take it to the other extreme and make it sound like you think "there is no point in giving effort" and that we all have a pre-determined fate there is no point trying to work towards or out of.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Do you think the millions of children dying of diseases and malnutrition not of their making in Africa are not deserving of health care?
Not being able to pay for a $75 steak at Ruth's Chris (highway robbery btw) is far different than going hungry. Major, major difference. No one is saying folks shouldn't have their 5000 square foot, 4 car garage cul de sac home.
Many people deserve many things that they don't get. It's sad, but that's different than having a right to something. Minimize a doctor's debt and give adequate resources for them to go to Africa and plenty would of their own volition. You can't force doctors to go serve in Africa against their will, just as doctors wouldn't practice here if they didn't feel they were being adequately treated
Edit: And you can already start to see what Mad jack is talking about come to fruition. Older doctors are retiring earlier or moving to concierge medicine and more graduating med students than ever are starting to take non-clinical jobs instead of going into practice.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2016/03/star-medical-student-feels-like-made-terrible-decision.html Read all comments on this site
Last edited:
The right violated is liberty. If I don't want to provide a service for what you are paying me, I don't have to provide it.
If I ask for 100 dollars or I won't provide medical care, I don't provide medical care for less than 100 dollars. However, if medical care becomes someone else's right, I have no control over my own autonomy and my own liberty. Then I am forced to give up my labor and my rights to my labor. In effect, I become a slave.
It's better to find and know the truth than to live in blissful ignorance. If we found evidence of genetic proclivities we could use them for good pursuits as well - perhaps catering to a child's interests and natural talents, rather than sending him to school and wasting years of his/her life chasing rabbits. It wouldn't rule out kids from pursuing a certain path, it would just give them more information to make the best, informed decision for their career path. It's similar to a scrawny white boy born to 2 extremely short parents not seriously pursuing being an NBA player. If you could see something that revealed your strengths and weaknesses prior to going to school, would you not want to look at it?
I agree with you. Unfortunately, this doesn't prove that genetics doesn't play a part in this discrepancy. I don't know, you don't know, no one knows at this point in time. But the most logical guess should be: genes absolutely play a role.
First, it doesn't matter what I think, that's the whole point I've been trying to make.
Second, this isn't what we've been talking about. We've been discussing whether or not there are gender differences in cognition. Why did you jump to who makes a better physician?
Third, even if we assume that there are gender differences, asking who makes a better physician is an extremely complex question and honestly largely a waste of time to seriously think about. Physicians, unlike engineers, utilize a vast repertoire of qualities and personality traits in their work. One single quality doesn't make or break a physician. Additionally, physicians can be successful with a variety of different personality traits, as they can choose a specialty and mold their practice around their strengths and weaknesses.
That you all could use a soggy biscuit. Nuff said.
@Nietzschelover I don't have time to go through and answer all of your posts one by one. In retrospect I shouldn't have brought the subject up; it's tangential at best. I threw a cheap shot out there towards a comment that annoyed me, you responded, and here we are. But don't presume to know anything about me, my intentions, my beliefs, or my background.
Can you be anymore histrionic? I have stated my position multiple times, I'm not going to do it again. Your fear of impending fascism resulting from scientific inquiry is absurd and frankly laughable. You keep throwing out these logical fallacies (slippery slope and so on) at me and I have no idea what you expect to do with them.
There is a world of difference between "individuals from group A are more likely to do X than individuals from group B which may be at least in part grounded in biology" and "all individuals from group B are incapable of doing X. Full stop." If you really don't see the difference, I can't help you.
There is an abundance of material out there quantifying the biological differences between men and women and the correlated differential in behavior. The argument is over how much of this relationship is causal, and to what extent. I'll let you guess what percentage of scientists say that it is zero. You are free to do your own research. Again, we see all types of behavior in both sexes; it's a simple matter of understanding a bell curve and maybe a little basic statistical analysis.
You "can't buy" that sex differences in the brain influence behavior and ability? Oh, I see. You mean you won't believe it. In that case, you should just state "I reject reason and evidence" and dismiss yourself from these conversations in the future.
Lastly, your insistence on explaining away all observable differences between male and female behavior and ability as purely resulting from "culture" is conjecture, plain and simple. You have no evidence to back up your claims (or at the very least you have not presented it.) Look, I'm sure you know waaay more than I do about the big wide world out there, having a PhD and all. Nonetheless, you are glib on this subject.
FWIW, I think your positions are much more dangerous and certainly less tolerant than mine. I strongly suggest you check out Steven Pinker's classic The Blank Slate.
Can you be anymore histrionic? I have stated my position multiple times, I'm not going to do it again. Your fear of impending fascism resulting from scientific inquiry is absurd and frankly laughable. You keep throwing out these logical fallacies (slippery slope and so on) at me and I have no idea what you expect to do with them.
There is a world of difference between "individuals from group A are more likely to do X than individuals from group B which may be at least in part grounded in biology" and "all individuals from group B are incapable of doing X. Full stop." If you really don't see the difference, I can't help you.
There is an abundance of material out there quantifying the biological differences between men and women and the correlated differential in behavior. The argument is over how much of this relationship is causal, and to what extent. I'll let you guess what percentage of scientists say that it is zero. You are free to do your own research. Again, we see all types of behavior in both sexes; it's a simple matter of understanding a bell curve and maybe a little basic statistical analysis.
You "can't buy" that sex differences in the brain influence behavior and ability? Oh, I see. You mean you won't believe it. In that case, you should just state "I reject reason and evidence" and dismiss yourself from these conversations in the future.
Lastly, your insistence on explaining away all observable differences between male and female behavior and ability as purely resulting from "culture" is conjecture, plain and simple. You have no evidence to back up your claims (or at the very least you have not presented it.) Look, I'm sure you know waaay more than I do about the big wide world out there, having a PhD and all. Nonetheless, you are glib on this subject.
FWIW, I think your positions are much more dangerous and certainly less tolerant than mine. I strongly suggest you check out Steven Pinker's classic The Blank Slate.
Last edited:
The real question is where do you get the biscuit from?
Women are genetically superior and thus obviously know better than to respond to idiotic statements like that. Lol jk.
Someone could use a refresher course in psychology. The data show that gender differences in scoring, especially in math, is most heavily influenced by environment and not genetics. For a personal example, I beat my older brother out in every academic subject under the sun, but I beat him out most significantly in math and science. Maybe our difference in genes plays a role, but being male alone obviously doesn't make him any more intelligent than me.
I may have misread an earlier post while skimming this awful thread, but I think someone else said that if we applied affirmative action we would be trying to increase female representation in medical school and across specialties. Well, women already make up about half of US MD students. I don't like the idea of making medicine a predominantly female profession any more than I'd like it being a predominantly male one.
D
deleted393595
You forgot your sarcasm tag?
1. Again, we're talking about generalities - no one is saying all men always do better than all women in math/science. Try reading the posts before making pointless posts like this that add nothing to the discussion.
2. Schools already use affirmative action to increase female representation. It's the whole reason why schools aim for 50/50 male/female...
Lots of your classmates will be liberals....for a while.
Most of your PhD professors will be liberals.
Most of your MD profs/mentors will be conservatives.
I don't really care what most of my classmates think, because chances are they'll become conservatives once they start working / seeing what healthcare is really like. I got a feel for who held what views pretty early (the liberals are always so proud of themselves) and chose to avoid the staunch liberals when discussing politics, simply for the reason that many people aren't capable of having a emotion-free political discussion.
You know that more women are graduating college than men, right? Lol
I've always been baffled to see people judging others' character based solely off their beliefs about the role of a governing body. Just because one believes that we shouldn't use force to accomplish an objective does NOT imply said person doesn't believe we should aim for that objective at all. If a physician believes that patients do not have a fundamental right to his/her services, yet he is willing to provide care to anyone whether they can afford it or not, is he/she still a sh*tty person? Would you still tell him/her to find a different profession? The differences in opinion we have about the role of the government in health care are just that, differences in opinion. They are not a reflection of someones character and do not necessarily dictate the decisions a person makes in his/her personal life.
Now on the issue of whether health care is a right or not, well that obviously depends on how you define a right. Personally, when I say that citizens are entitled to certain rights, I am only talking about negative rights, the rights we have that are not to be interfered with - life, liberty, and to some extent, property. However, I do also believe that in a country as prosperous as the US, we should strive to make sure all of us have access to health care, to a certain extent. Personally, I don't believe a single payer system, individual and/or employer mandate is the most efficient way to do this. I do like the idea of having the government and employers subsidizing (tax-free) personal health savings accounts, so that insurance companies and health care providers have to compete for consumers' dollars. In conjunction with some sort of universal catastrophic insurance for emergency situations, I think this system would 1. influence people to prioritize their personal health to save money in their HSA and 2. spur competition that would encourage more cost efficient and personalized health care plans. My fear about a single payer system is that we would lose much of the innovation we have in the pharmaceutical drug and medical device fields. This is something that really sets the US apart from the rest of the world. How do advocates of a single payer system feel about this?
Our healthcare system is extremely complex, and I'll admit I still have a lot to learn. Maybe my mind will be changed when I'm a practicing physician, but this is how I see it now. Hopefully we can have a civilized discussion and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.
Now on the issue of whether health care is a right or not, well that obviously depends on how you define a right. Personally, when I say that citizens are entitled to certain rights, I am only talking about negative rights, the rights we have that are not to be interfered with - life, liberty, and to some extent, property. However, I do also believe that in a country as prosperous as the US, we should strive to make sure all of us have access to health care, to a certain extent. Personally, I don't believe a single payer system, individual and/or employer mandate is the most efficient way to do this. I do like the idea of having the government and employers subsidizing (tax-free) personal health savings accounts, so that insurance companies and health care providers have to compete for consumers' dollars. In conjunction with some sort of universal catastrophic insurance for emergency situations, I think this system would 1. influence people to prioritize their personal health to save money in their HSA and 2. spur competition that would encourage more cost efficient and personalized health care plans. My fear about a single payer system is that we would lose much of the innovation we have in the pharmaceutical drug and medical device fields. This is something that really sets the US apart from the rest of the world. How do advocates of a single payer system feel about this?
Our healthcare system is extremely complex, and I'll admit I still have a lot to learn. Maybe my mind will be changed when I'm a practicing physician, but this is how I see it now. Hopefully we can have a civilized discussion and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.
I understand what you mean, but I think you are missing the point.
If people have a right to bear arms protected under the law by laws such as concealed carry for example then you can carry a concealed arm on your person. If I am a small business owner I have a right to refuse weapons - concealed or not - being present on my property. Are anyone's rights being violated? No. People with concealed weapons can go to another store or leave their weapon at home or in the car when visiting this business.
If people have a right to access healthcare then they have a right to receive affordable care when they need it. If a physician does not want to provide care at the price which was determined fair and affordable by a governing body (it can be a hospital system, it can be the government, it can be a committee of insurance providers -- it is not necessarily the government who has to determine this) then they do not provide care for that patient. However in a system where healthcare is a human right, there is an affordable and accessible option for every citizen. It might not be you, but they will get it somewhere. No one's rights are being violated.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
As to the first point, see my above comment to another poster.
As to the second, why can't a competitive market (which I do not associate with free, because free markets approach oligopoly; a well-regulated market on the other hand is regulated in such a way that promotes disruption and accessibility by new competitors) exist alongside the public option for receiving care? I don't think any of us have a problem with rich people opting out of care. However, the majority of people will opt for the more affordable option and you can have both private and public options while still maintaining that everyone be able to access healthcare.
Who gets to decide what is medically necessary? How about healthcare professionals....
As to the second half of your post beyond the ---...
Those are all important questions. They are secondary to the question of whether people have a right to healthcare or not. I personally believe, as the quote in my signature says, that people should not die from treatable illness. I also think people have a right to preventative services and longitudinal primary care because those are demonstrably cost-effective services in the long-term. An accessible healthcare market would regulate drug prices. You can decide how much healthcare is enough. We can agree on that. We can see which methods are the most cost effective. We can maximize and minimize different variables to achieve an optimum which we believe is fair. However, you must start from the point where healthcare is a human right because otherwise the system you get will be one where people die from preventable illness, where children die because they cannot afford cancer treatment, where the poor die because they did not catch a disease early enough because they dont have a PCP nearby which they can afford, etc etc etc.
This is not a brand new, trail-blazing concept. Many countries already do this far cheaper and more effectively per patient than we do.
Perhaps some of us are more comfortable being treated as public service workers than others in this allegedly service-based profession. I don't think most of us would equate it with slavery.
Last edited:
Even though this is probably a political sh*tstorm by now I'll still reply to the OP.
Medical schools like diversity, and I think most of them are sensible enough to understand that "diversity" means more than just race and ethnicity. It can mean variable religious views, socioeconomic status, culture, language and yes, political views.
Don't disparage others who don't share your political views and you should be fine. But that should be a general rule for all of us.
*leaves before reading any philosophical debates about the right to healthcare*
Medical schools like diversity, and I think most of them are sensible enough to understand that "diversity" means more than just race and ethnicity. It can mean variable religious views, socioeconomic status, culture, language and yes, political views.
Don't disparage others who don't share your political views and you should be fine. But that should be a general rule for all of us.
*leaves before reading any philosophical debates about the right to healthcare*
And that's fine, but how do you deal with the massive number of physicians that refuse to participate? I'd venture that, if political leanings are any indication, at least half of doctors would opt out of the system. A system without providers can't guarantee access to anything.
I actually predict that most people would be willing to participate. If other countries are any evidence, a public system, well-subsidized and which provides affordable care to all of its patients alongside a medical education system which is also heavily subsidized produces happier physicians with more professional satisfaction, a system with better measurable outcomes, and can still provide a salary well-above the national median for those countries. The quality of the employer and the work will be more important to 99% of physicians than ideology (just as it is now) and I, unlike you and Womb I suspect, believe that most people would be happy with what the healthcare market deems as "enough" payment for medical service.
If you look at the military med forums, most military docs will list "not having to worry about the cost of treatment" as a strong pro. One American physician I know (who is very, very conservative by most standards, run-of-the-mill by Texas standards) worked for the NHS in England for 5 years because of a faculty appointment at a school there and said he strongly preferred it to our system here and would go back in a heartbeat if given the opportunity. N=1 though.
Personally, however, I believe medicine is a service profession in the way joining the Peace Corps or Americorps or the military is a service profession (to a lesser extent than the military though since military service is a far bigger commitment). That's just me. I dont expect people to agree with me on that.
Sounds like you're talking about unionizing.
I don't think all the resources that go into training physicians to be physicians are meant for them to become venture capitalists instead.
I guess the stuff about commitment to addressing healthcare disparities, altruism, and commitment to the underserved is all smoke and mirrors.
You're emotion-free, lol? Come on now. Your arguments smack of someone who has had his beliefs for a long time -- very politically-charged/motivated I might add -- and then uses his impressive intellect to defend those beliefs. As opposed to using that intellect to discover and nuance his beliefs.
You misunderstand the traditional nature of service regarding professions and also medicine.
"A profession is a vocation founded upon specialised educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain."
There are two true professions, traditionally- law and medicine. Both are supposed to provide objective counsel in regard to their knowledge for whatever remuneration they choose to collect, but in the interest of their client and without secondary gain (in other words, not to sell their own products or services, aside from their objective skills and advice). That is why medicine is a service profession- because you serve your client objectively, without your own interests coming before theirs. As an example- you have cancer and we can treat it with surgery or chemo- surgery is the best option but I make tons on chemo, so I'll sell you chemo would be a violation of that objective service to your client.
But no one said you or anyone else was arguing that there couldn't be outliers who break the norm that you think is at least in part biologically based. You are arguing though that major trends -- enough for you to keep highlighting them as such -- do have some etched-in-stone forever type of quality. And that's what you're wrong about.
And -- and this is in reply to @ZedsDed as well, and I admit I am no expert on genetics -- the gene pool isn't some static, forever-true thing, is it? Let's say you tested blacks (and women) on test scores in 1860, 1910, 1940, 1975, 2016, and 2035. You think there would a perfectly static trend-line? You don't think the trend-line would be moving towards an even distribution compared to white men?
Of course there are genetics, but there there is an interaction effect between genetics and environmental/social factors over time.
Slavery? Someone is really suggesting that healthcare for all amounts to that person becoming a slave? Wow.
Couldn't have said it better.
But, remember, in the US, we the students are fronting most of the resources. I've already said, I'm expecting $500-600K in debt by the time I finish residency. Schools provide the location for teaching and make a profit
In order to create this system, you will have to convince a country that is already worried about their debt to start funding college education and then also start funding healthcare. And then convince doctors who are in tremendous debt to sacrifice their ability to pay off that debt and live a comfortable life. And then will all this debt, also create a financially strong healthcare system, so we don't end up with the troubles the NHS is having now
I never said I don't intend to provide care to the underserved, just that I would do it on my own terms, and not because the government forced me to. And no, I'm not talking about unionizing, I'm talking about not working for the government at all. If half of your providers refuse to accept your newfangled payment system, your system will have no access and thus will not function. Unless you intend to violate the autonomy of providers and force them to work in your system, in which case, congratulations, you have violated their human right to self direction per article 23 of the United Nations declaration of human rights, which guarantees both the right to work and the right to choose employment.
You missed the part where those interests only pertain to secondary gain.
A professional is allowed to charge whatever they want for their consultation, regardless of client interests, so long as once that agreement is reached, it is understood that the professional's advice and services will be provided in an objective and disinterested manner. In other words, no selling things they don't need, no drawing out your consultation time for no reason, etc.
You raise some great questions.
Just on the topic of innovation and drug discoveries I certainly don't presume to know what works best. Do more innovations come out of university/academic-based research or from private, for-profit biotech/pharm companies? I really do not know. But I do have questions about the practicality of millions poured into tiny biopharms hoping to hit a home run where most fold before anything great comes to fruition. I've personally invested in some of these and I've only lost money as an investor.
Does anyone have data on satisfaction levels in countries with single player?
The NHS is rapidly privatizing because the public system couldn't manage to create adequate conditions due to lack of funding. I really am enjoying watching the system burn. Hopefully they leave the Euro as well so that whole disaster of an experiment can be put to rest as well.
This 100000000000000000x. Any physician that is OK with sacrificing their 20's, go through the high amount of stress, liability, crap from management + insurance companies, and the kicker of 200+k of debt to make a meager salary is out of their mind, and will 100000% regret their decision well down the line.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sure and I can appreciate that (although I wasn't aware of the original definition so thanks for that, a nice piece of medical history to know) but I would go one step further and say the physician's commitment goes beyond the individual client and extends to all people, especially their fellow citizens in their country.
That's silly, imo.
Going to medical school shouldn't be like signing up to join a government-like entity for life.
The point is that we have been asleep at the wheel for a long time. We should have been paying for these things a long time ago. It's difficult to convince the public to pay for medical education though when the dominant view is that physicians are more self-interested and profit oriented than willing to be servers of the community/ country.
I think it's a better way to ensure that everyone is doing the right thing in the best interest of the population rather than individual clients. Population health, health literacy, disparities, environmental impact, standard of care, centralized clinical research operations better integrated with clinical care and all of that jazz
Wow. You are certainly coming across as very religious and defensive about your own rights while arguing against healthcare rights for others. What would you do if your reputation became so bad because of your neo-con views that you got zero patients? You are never going to have a system, aside from the topics in this discussion, where you get to call your own shots on everything. Why aren't you as focused on the impact of insurance companies as the government?
And many among those of arguing for health care rights for all would also support physicians being more in charge of intervention decisions, more in charge of what tests to order or not order, more in charge of how long or not long patients stay in the hospital, a more aggressive approach to controlling the meddling of lawyers laying in the weeds, etc, etc. There actually might be some benefits in a single payer system for some of the very things that are most dear to you.
