NYU Emergency department VIP issues

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The generational poverty we see so often in the ED is so built into these family lines, that poverty almost becomes an inheritable trait.
If this is true, then you are essentially saying nothing will change their path in life. If so, then most are without hope. I can't accept this as I know many who were in broken homes, worked hard, and became successful to many varying degrees.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My family were immigrants that got here with nothing more than 2 suitcases for the whole family, and we had 5 people in a 1 bedroom apartment.
Clothes were donations, food was what we could get

I worked my butt off, had 2 jobs, school, maintained straight A’s and went to medical school.

My parents didn’t have a vacation in 22 years (whole family never had a vacation). No sick days, worked 2 jobs etc…

Their first vacation was when I could afford it after becoming an attending.

Now I get extremely frustrated when people think things should just be given to them, Or the government should solve all these issues. Especially those that can’t get it straight for generations.
Enough with the self pity and entitlements and work you butt off
I just will never get on board that hard work will not fix your family's projection. My family were immigrants too and poorer than most under the poverty line today. I can remember zero vacations not withing a few hr drive, eating out, new clothes.

But now I see people who claim poverty, get gov assistance with internet, cell phone, Cable tv, a car, buying lottery tickets, nails done, free school lunches for all. The more the gov gives, the more people lose the motivation for hard work. Most gov programs hurt more than help. Keeps people down rather than pushing them to improve.

All of this is ok with me as this gives my parents and me a huge edge b/c I KNOW that I can outwork 99% of people I compete against b/c 2/3rds do not even try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I just will never get on board that hard work will not fix your family's projection. My family were immigrants too and poorer than most under the poverty line today. I can remember zero vacations not withing a few hr drive, eating out, new clothes.

But now I see people who claim poverty, get gov assistance with internet, cell phone, Cable tv, a car, buying lottery tickets, nails done, free school lunches for all. The more the gov gives, the more people lose the motivation for hard work. Most gov programs hurt more than help. Keeps people down rather than pushing them to improve.

All of this is ok with me as this gives my parents and me a huge edge b/c I KNOW that I can outwork 99% of people I compete against b/c 2/3rds do not even try.
Agreed. When people come into the ED with Air Jordan’s, IPhone, Apple Watch, designer clothes etc, but claim to have nothing. That is much more than I ever had. I have no sympathy. If I can work through it anybody can
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know this will never happen but If the US cuts all aid except for the very proven needy, get rid of nonessentials such as cable TV, data plan cell phone, free internet. Get rid of most food stamps/cards and only allows them to buy from a government "basic food essential market". If this ever happened, I bet 99% would go out, work harder, and support themselves.

The poor in general are the most uneducated and do not realize that gov help is not really helping but making them more dependent. No diff that druggies getting monthly drug deliveries from the gov. Cut it off and they will get better.

If the gov is supplying a decent life style, why get up and work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I know this will never happen but If the US cuts all aid except for the very proven needy, get rid of nonessentials such as cable TV, data plan cell phone, free internet. Get rid of most food stamps/cards and only allows them to buy from a government "basic food essential market". If this ever happened, I bet 99% would go out, work harder, and support themselves.

The poor in general are the most uneducated and do not realize that gov help is not really helping but making them more dependent. No diff that druggies getting monthly drug deliveries from the gov. Cut it off and they will get better.

If the gov is supplying a decent life style, why get up and work?

This is what liberals seem to never, ever get.

We can NEVER make not working pay more than working. It can’t ever be close unless people are profoundly disabled. There are too many ways to game the system and humans are inherently usually lazy by design. Why work when you can have things given to you? Not eating is a powerful motivator.

We all see the Medicaid patients with expensive SUVs, shoes, phones etc. Pure waste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I will give a real life example of how gov help always results in keeping the poor down. Where I live rent and real estate is expensive.

I have a family living in one of my rentals 2/2 for the past 5 yrs and paid $1100/mo. Good tenants, never complains, never asks to fix anything b/c they know rent is 2x below market. I don't really need the income, so never increased much.

Lib City seems to always pass bond packages for a variety of waste that seems great to the low income community. Yeah, lets vote for it b/c its "free". Yeah its free for them bc they rent but it typically pushed to home owners in higher property tax. Yeah, no big deal, they can handle it b/c they are rich. What is an extra $100/yr matter to these owners. Well, every 2 years more gets passed, more waste. In the rare instance it fails, it just gets repackaged in a few years as another bond package to help the poor.

Anyhow, I had to tell these renters they need to move b/c I got tired of paying more property taxes. Out went the old, raised the rent to $3600/mo, and got a new tenant in 2 wks. I now make more $$$, and someone who likely voted for the "free" stuff is paying atleast 50% more in rent to pay for all of these bonds. I surely will not be holding the bag
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
This is what liberals seem to never, ever get.

We can NEVER make not working pay more than working. It can’t ever be close unless people are profoundly disabled. There are too many ways to game the system and humans are inherently usually lazy by design. Why work when you can have things given to you? Not eating is a powerful motivator.

We all see the Medicaid patients with expensive SUVs, shoes, phones etc. Pure waste.
Funny how the wealthy always use the spectre of poor people having nice things to justify erasing the middle class. We probably should be trying for better than a slow motion recreation of the Hunger Games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I recall something from 20 years ago (again). I was angling for an EM residency spot at Mt. Sinai. I did an elective there in my prelim IM year. I recall a homeless guy that the attending asked me to cut his toenails (after his feet had been soaking in bicarb for a while). Being the suckup I was at the time, I did it. Although they were there, I never once saw a ritzy or rich patient.

And I didn't get a spot at Sinai. The chair DNR me, which I knew because I didn't match, and they didn't fill that year. I didn't go to the right school (ie, I was an FMG, but the only FMGs they took, and rarely, were from Sackler). TBH, I was pretty squared away, and they couldn't jibe it with me being an FMG.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 users
This is what liberals seem to never, ever get.


...and conservatives lack the cajones to actually implement their "plans." Nothing was stopping the Republicans from gutting welfare via reconciliation when they held the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I mean... unless conservatives are acting in bad faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I can agree with alot you said but completely disagree with this. Hard work and outworking others is the only way you can almost guarantee improvement. I am not saying you will be top 10% successful, but you will take a step up on the financial rung.

Hard work is never wasted, there are always benefits. I can tell you many free gov programs that are a complete waste and in many ways makes it worse.
Hard work always pays. It just doesn't always pay the person who does the work. If I had to guess, that's what @Arcan57 was getting at.

You can work your ass off but if you're not in a position to take advantage of the results (for any number of reasons), it may not actually help you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Funny how the wealthy always use the spectre of poor people having nice things to justify erasing the middle class. We probably should be trying for better than a slow motion recreation of the Hunger Games.

So you are saying poor people should buy nice things AND take government handouts?

The assumption that we can’t have a robust middle class without massive entitlement programs that get more and more bloated each year means the system is rotten to its core.
 
So you are saying poor people should buy nice things AND take government handouts?

The assumption that we can’t have a robust middle class without massive entitlement programs that get more and more bloated each year means the system is rotten to its core.
It takes a certain perspective to look at the concentration of wealth going to fewer and fewer people and the increased ability of that wealth to change the rules of the game to prevent vast segments of the population from having a realistic shot at what was once considered a middle class lifestyle and determine that the problem is we don’t let enough children starve.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 9 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It takes a certain perspective to look at the concentration of wealth going to fewer and fewer people and the increased ability of that wealth to change the rules of the game to prevent vast segments of the population from having a realistic shot at what was once considered a middle class lifestyle and determine that the problem is we don’t let enough children starve.
Well, I have a modest proposal to keep the children from starving...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So you are saying poor people should buy nice things AND take government handouts?

The assumption that we can’t have a robust middle class without massive entitlement programs that get more and more bloated each year means the system is rotten to its core.

Off-topic:
Aren't you derm or psych?

On-topic:
I'm not sure who is arguing what here, so allow me to read from the top and sort it out with a clear brain.

Happy New Year, all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Off-topic:
Aren't you derm or psych?

On-topic:
I'm not sure who is arguing what here, so allow me to read from the top and sort it out with a clear brain.

Happy New Year, all.

Derm. But my forum is boring/dead so I look at yours and a couple others.

And yes I still do see some Medicaid patients even though I lose money on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It takes a certain perspective to look at the concentration of wealth going to fewer and fewer people and the increased ability of that wealth to change the rules of the game to prevent vast segments of the population from having a realistic shot at what was once considered a middle class lifestyle and determine that the problem is we don’t let enough children starve.
Come on. I dont think anyone should starve, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating for children to starve. But the setup now is not efficiently avoiding children starving. Where I grew up 95% of the children are on free school lunch, yet I can’t tell you the number of times I have had someone hop out of their late model Escalade to try to sell me their food benefit card for cash when shopping in that neighborhood. That combined with hearing all the time that 1/6 of kids are food insecure implies to me that the money isn’t being directed to those who really need it. The schools give the kids breakfast and lunch and the government pays for more food besides that, I don’t understand how there can be so many who are hungry except that a lot of the food money for the children is not being spent on food for the children. Kicking people off who don’t need it would allow more resources towards people who really do need the help.

I am sympathetic to people who don’t have housing or food. We have one particular patient who comes to the ER if it’s cold and the library is closed. If I see his name pop up I literally grab a couple pairs of hospital socks, a couple sandwiches (he prefers mustard) and some ginger ale on my way out there, offer housing referral, offer transport to a shelter, offer substance abuse resources. He’s not mentally together enough to figure out housing or a food assistance application. I would love to help him any possible way. I’m not a mean hearted person.

I’m posting this to say, it’s not so black and white as anyone wanting anyone to starve or not to have a roof over their head, but blindly throwing money at the situation without a plan doesn’t seem to have helped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Come on. I dont think anyone should starve, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating for children to starve. But the setup now is not efficiently avoiding children starving. Where I grew up 95% of the children are on free school lunch, yet I can’t tell you the number of times I have had someone hop out of their late model Escalade to try to sell me their food benefit card for cash when shopping in that neighborhood. That combined with hearing all the time that 1/6 of kids are food insecure implies to me that the money isn’t being directed to those who really need it. The schools give the kids breakfast and lunch and the government pays for more food besides that, I don’t understand how there can be so many who are hungry except that a lot of the food money for the children is not being spent on food for the children. Kicking people off who don’t need it would allow more resources towards people who really do need the help.

I am sympathetic to people who don’t have housing or food. We have one particular patient who comes to the ER if it’s cold and the library is closed. If I see his name pop up I literally grab a couple pairs of hospital socks, a couple sandwiches (he prefers mustard) and some ginger ale on my way out there, offer housing referral, offer transport to a shelter, offer substance abuse resources. He’s not mentally together enough to figure out housing or a food assistance application. I would love to help him any possible way. I’m not a mean hearted person.

I’m posting this to say, it’s not so black and white as anyone wanting anyone to starve or not to have a roof over their head, but blindly throwing money at the situation without a plan doesn’t seem to have helped.
What I'm broadly pushing back against is this unexamined world view where:

1) The rich are rich because they have virtuous qualities that make them deserving of wealth and their wealth makes them inherently more wise regarding how society as a whole should spend its resources than the non-wealthy.
2) The poor are poor because they have detestable qualities that make them deserving of being poor and anything they do that's not creating wealth (which in most cases is immediately transferred out of their control) is evidence of their weak moral character.
3) Anything that reduces the efficiency of the transfer of wealth from poor to rich is both inherently immoral and will also inevitably lead to society collapsing and everyone returning to a subsistence level of existance.
4) Any government spending that is not a direct transfer of wealth to the already wealthy is waste, thoughtless, and is incapable of helping the targeted population in any way.

It bothers me that we're so hypocritical about where our wealth comes from as physicians. Even the docs that preach the gospel of hard work as the One True God get the seed money for the passive income revenue streams largely with the government's help. With the exception of a couple of specialties, we rely on government funding for our livelihood. If you trained in the US, taxpayers paid for your residency training. If you did med school in the US and didn't have rich parents, you received subsidized loans to pay for your schooling. We may have worked damned hard to be able to sit in comfort typing on the Internet about how we think things should be, but a lot of us wouldn't be on this forum without government assistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
but a lot of us wouldn't be on this forum without government assistance.

Please. Your logic may apply to the ultra wealthy but physicians are really not that. If you take someone above average intelligence willing to work 80-100 hours a week for 7-8+ years learning/building their trade, your really think they won’t end up making a good living? You think we all couldn’t have been independent electricians or other professionals in lieu of medicine? The “government assistance” in this cesspool of a healthcare system mainly is enriching CEOs and administrators, paper pushers and drug companies, not doctors would undoubtedly still have done fine elsewhere.

Yes, the system enriches the folks making 20, 50, 100 million a year and those with family fortunes. Yes, the poor often have a more difficult start but this is still a country you can have zero to start and make it to the upper middle class based solely on hard work. The entitlement programs are stupendously inefficient and sometimes harmful in this path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Seriously. So far off topic at this point. Can you guys take your political science argument to its own thread

No, bro.
This is what makes this forum awesome.
I want to enter the fray, but I can't keep up (nightshift 3 of 3 tonight).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Please. Your logic may apply to the ultra wealthy but physicians are really not that. If you take someone above average intelligence willing to work 80-100 hours a week for 7-8+ years learning/building their trade, your really think they won’t end up making a good living? You think we all couldn’t have been independent electricians or other professionals in lieu of medicine? The “government assistance” in this cesspool of a healthcare system mainly is enriching CEOs and administrators, paper pushers and drug companies, not doctors would undoubtedly still have done fine elsewhere.

Yes, the system enriches the folks making 20, 50, 100 million a year and those with family fortunes. Yes, the poor often have a more difficult start but this is still a country you can have zero to start and make it to the upper middle class based solely on hard work. The entitlement programs are stupendously inefficient and sometimes harmful in this path.
My argument is that physicians as a group benefit immensely from government spending and it's pretty hypocritical of us to act like we don't. I'm not sure how "what if we were all plumbers?!?" addresses what I'm saying. You received handouts when you went through training. Just because they were orders of magnitude less than the handouts we give the uber wealthy doesn't make them less of a transfer of public money to a private citizen.

Yes, in this country you can start in poverty and move up several social classes. I'm not debating that. I am going to push back on the idea that 8 years of 80-100 hr weeks should be necessary to make a good living. I'm going to push back on the idea that the transition from poverty to dermatology level wealthy is solely due to hard work. And I'm going to push back on the idea that the ideal structure for society is to focus on allowing the few to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible. Trickle down economics doesn't work and there are very real and dangerous downsides to societies with extreme wealth disparity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
My family were immigrants that got here with nothing more than 2 suitcases for the whole family, and we had 5 people in a 1 bedroom apartment.
Clothes were donations, food was what we could get

I worked my butt off, had 2 jobs, school, maintained straight A’s and went to medical school.

My parents didn’t have a vacation in 22 years (whole family never had a vacation). No sick days, worked 2 jobs etc…

Their first vacation was when I could afford it after becoming an attending.

Now I get extremely frustrated when people think things should just be given to them, Or the government should solve all these issues. Especially those that can’t get it straight for generations.

Also frustrating when the government now wants to tax me, after working so hard, to give to those that don’t.

Enough with the self pity and entitlements and work your butt off

You know, I used to feel this way. Now I'm planning on signing up for the ACA next year, and I will qualify for huge subsidies. You never know anyone's story, I guess, and some people have a ton of trauma.

Agreed that until Bezos, Musk etc pay their fair share we should not be taxed at the obscene rates we are (yet another reason I quit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
My argument is that physicians as a group benefit immensely from government spending and it's pretty hypocritical of us to act like we don't. I'm not sure how "what if we were all plumbers?!?" addresses what I'm saying. You received handouts when you went through training. Just because they were orders of magnitude less than the handouts we give the uber wealthy doesn't make them less of a transfer of public money to a private citizen.

Yes, in this country you can start in poverty and move up several social classes. I'm not debating that. I am going to push back on the idea that 8 years of 80-100 hr weeks should be necessary to make a good living. I'm going to push back on the idea that the transition from poverty to dermatology level wealthy is solely due to hard work. And I'm going to push back on the idea that the ideal structure for society is to focus on allowing the few to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible. Trickle down economics doesn't work and there are very real and dangerous downsides to societies with extreme wealth disparity.

Everything you say above is very reasonable. That being said— it just doesn’t apply to a group of people in our income bracket and line of work.

If you work that hard, contribute a service that benefits society, and then pay 30-40% of your money into taxes (way more as a percentage than those lower or higher on the wealth curve) then I say you are not part of the trickle down economics or wealth transfer you allude to. It’s irrelevant if medicine as a whole benefits from “government assistance” — if it didn’t, and the salaries were cut in half (or we had to pay even more for training) then many/most of us with our work ethics would find a different, lucrative line of work which had a better return on investment.

Sure, if you are a robber baron making 500 million a year and paying 5% taxes using all the loopholes afforded to you by this system, the argument makes sense.

If you are a doctor, what % of taxes into inefficient government spending would exempt you from this “wealth transfer” you mention? 50%? 80%?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you are a doctor, what % of taxes into inefficient government spending would exempt you from this “wealth transfer” you mention? 50%? 80%?
It is interesting when they talk about paying your "fair share", they never mention what the upper limit of "fair share" is before they start taxing the middle class and lower classes and/or cutting benefits. I would suspect that "fair share" cut be up to 100% of income for the rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My argument is that physicians as a group benefit immensely from government spending and it's pretty hypocritical of us to act like we don't.
This argument is just laughable to me. Everyone in America benefits from gov spending. These are the rules set and we all just work within the rules.

That is like me telling someone who created a new marketing plan by mailing a new fandango flier and getting 1M people to buy their product. Then you telling me that they benefited greatly from gov spending by using gov subsidized post office. I mean if not for the post office, this person could not be successful.

There is nothing hypocritical about playing within the rules avail to everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This argument is just laughable to me. Everyone in America benefits from gov spending. These are the rules set and we all just work within the rules.

That is like me telling someone who created a new marketing plan by mailing a new fandango flier and getting 1M people to buy their product. Then you telling me that they benefited greatly from gov spending by using gov subsidized post office. I mean if not for the post office, this person could not be successful.

There is nothing hypocritical about playing within the rules avail to everyone.
Several posters have explicitly stated that their success is solely attributable to their hard work and in the same post either implicitly or actively encouraged removal of government spending that benefit disadvantaged groups often with some anecdote about how that groups doesn't deserve to be helped due to a moral failing.

I'm not saying there's anything hypocritical about playing by the rules as they currently exist. Certainly there are a lot of deeply immoral behaviors that are nonetheless legal, but I'm not addressing that topic. I am saying it's hypocritical to act like the government spending that directly benefits us is a separate and distinct entity from other types of government subsidies.

Your example refuting my argument has a couple of issues. USPS is traditionally self-funded (with the exception of a bailout in March of 2022 due to requirements that the USPS pre-fund their retirement program), so not the best example of government subsidies. Also, even if the post office was a major receiver of tax revenues, government funding of residency training is orders of magnitude more involved in the creation of physicians than this hypothetical post-office would be to the marketer.

It's the difference between utilizing a common good and benefiting from a specific handout. Couriers depend on roads, but so do many other completely different groups. I think a more apt comparison would be farm subsidies. Society decides it's important to grow corn so we subsidize corn growers. Corn production becomes artificially inflated due to the extra money flowing into it. If you're not a corn farmer, you get some knock-on benefit in the form of incredibly cheap calories but otherwise don't directly benefit.

It'd be weird for the farmer to start sh%$ talking government subsidies in that scenario, right?

P.S.

Nobody I've been engaging with on this discussion has offered a realistic alternative to the current (flawed) system by which the government tries to eradicate poverty. Maybe it's not the intent to be preaching a "poverty should be a Lord of the Flies scenario so we know those that make it out of poverty are truly worthy" message. But when you (although not specifically you emergentMD) denigrate people in poverty as dishonest and stupid and then argue that putting resources into helping them only furthers their moral decay, I don't know how else to read that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
But when you (although not specifically you emergentMD) denigrate people in poverty as dishonest and stupid and then argue that putting resources into helping them only furthers their moral decay, I don't know how else to read that.
Poverty is something that can not be eradicated completely. Just like everything in life, like obesity will be eradicated completely. But if we continue to make excuses for it and push money to decrease the will to improve/work harder, then we are just feeding the problem.

Someone who is poor or obese, I don't feel pouring money for programs that takes out the will to work harder is the solution. I don't have all the answers, but IMO what we are doing is just makin the problems worse mainly to get votes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Several posters have explicitly stated that their success is solely attributable to their hard work and in the same post either implicitly or actively encouraged removal of government spending that benefit disadvantaged groups often with some anecdote about how that groups doesn't deserve to be helped due to a moral failing.

I'm not saying there's anything hypocritical about playing by the rules as they currently exist. Certainly there are a lot of deeply immoral behaviors that are nonetheless legal, but I'm not addressing that topic. I am saying it's hypocritical to act like the government spending that directly benefits us is a separate and distinct entity from other types of government subsidies.

Your example refuting my argument has a couple of issues. USPS is traditionally self-funded (with the exception of a bailout in March of 2022 due to requirements that the USPS pre-fund their retirement program), so not the best example of government subsidies. Also, even if the post office was a major receiver of tax revenues, government funding of residency training is orders of magnitude more involved in the creation of physicians than this hypothetical post-office would be to the marketer.

It's the difference between utilizing a common good and benefiting from a specific handout. Couriers depend on roads, but so do many other completely different groups. I think a more apt comparison would be farm subsidies. Society decides it's important to grow corn so we subsidize corn growers. Corn production becomes artificially inflated due to the extra money flowing into it. If you're not a corn farmer, you get some knock-on benefit in the form of incredibly cheap calories but otherwise don't directly benefit.

It'd be weird for the farmer to start sh%$ talking government subsidies in that scenario, right?

P.S.

Nobody I've been engaging with on this discussion has offered a realistic alternative to the current (flawed) system by which the government tries to eradicate poverty. Maybe it's not the intent to be preaching a "poverty should be a Lord of the Flies scenario so we know those that make it out of poverty are truly worthy" message. But when you (although not specifically you emergentMD) denigrate people in poverty as dishonest and stupid and then argue that putting resources into helping them only furthers their moral decay, I don't know how else to read that.

It's not like they're doing it for free. They made a ton of money off of taxing physicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Several posters have explicitly stated that their success is solely attributable to their hard work and in the same post either implicitly or actively encouraged removal of government spending that benefit disadvantaged groups often with some anecdote about how that groups doesn't deserve to be helped due to a moral failing.

I don’t think anyone actually said that- it was your interpretation.

If you take 30-40% of someone’s earnings and that’s not enough to help “eradicate poverty” (which I agree isn’t possible) then I would argue the solution isn’t to take more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If we stopped fighting endless wars abroad, I bet we could address poverty and homelessness
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don’t think anyone actually said that- it was your interpretation.

If you take 30-40% of someone’s earnings and that’s not enough to help “eradicate poverty” (which I agree isn’t possible) then I would argue the solution isn’t to take more.
So do you disagree with the interpretation?

Do you (or @emergentmd) believe it is false that your financial success is primarily attributable to your hard work? Do you believe it is false that people suffering from homelessness do so primarily because they made bad choices leading them to their current situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So do you disagree with the interpretation?

Do you (or @emergentmd) believe it is false that your financial success is primarily attributable to your hard work? Do you believe it is false that people suffering from homelessness do so primarily because they made bad choices leading them to their current situation?

“Primarily” is very different than “solely” ( which is the word that was used by the other poster).

Yes, I think for 90% of people in the USA their success is primarily due to hard work, and secondarily due to family resources. Now obviously the values we instill to work hard in our kids have a role in that too, but in the end a “victim” mentality (ie most things are out of our power and due to circumstance) is helpful to no one and certainly unhelpful to society as a whole.
 
“Primarily” is very different than “solely” ( which is the word that was used by the other poster).

Yes, I think for 90% of people in the USA their success is primarily due to hard work, and secondarily due to family resources. Now obviously the values we instill to work hard in our kids have a role in that too, but in the end a “victim” mentality (ie most things are out of our power and due to circumstance) is helpful to no one and certainly unhelpful to society as a whole.
Yea the bottom 90% of poor people's wealth is absolutely due to their hard work. However, in the case of 0.1% it is almost always family wealth
 
My family were immigrants that got here with nothing more than 2 suitcases for the whole family, and we had 5 people in a 1 bedroom apartment.
Clothes were donations, food was what we could get

I worked my butt off, had 2 jobs, school, maintained straight A’s and went to medical school.

My parents didn’t have a vacation in 22 years (whole family never had a vacation). No sick days, worked 2 jobs etc…

Their first vacation was when I could afford it after becoming an attending.

Now I get extremely frustrated when people think things should just be given to them, Or the government should solve all these issues. Especially those that can’t get it straight for generations.

Also frustrating when the government now wants to tax me, after working so hard, to give to those that don’t.

Enough with the self pity and entitlements and work your butt off

Your parents got abused and taken advantage of; meanwhile, today, their equivalents have even worse prospects. Now you've been convinced to defend the system that did that to your family and wave it around as a point of pride.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I are sure to tell my patients in the ER, who are working two fast food jobs without any health benefits, to work a little harder and it will pay off one day.

I’ve always found it interesting how people can work in the ER and come away with a disdain for the poor.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
I are sure to tell my patients in the ER, who are working two fast food jobs without any health benefits, to work a little harder and it will pay off one day.

I’ve always found it interesting how people can work in the ER and come away with a disdain for the poor.
You seem to have a drastically different experience than most of us. Mine is that most poor people (truly poor, not working class) are POS's. Lying, manipulative scumbags who lack any compunction about creating hardships for others in order to advantage themselves in the least. I can't blame them, it's what their circumstances demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You seem to have a drastically different experience than most of us. Mine is that most poor people (truly poor, not working class) are POS's. Lying, manipulative scumbags who lack any compunction about creating hardships for others in order to advantage themselves in the least. I can't blame them, it's what their circumstances demand.
You’re talking about CEOs, right?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
You seem to have a drastically different experience than most of us. Mine is that most poor people (truly poor, not working class) are POS's. Lying, manipulative scumbags who lack any compunction about creating hardships for others in order to advantage themselves in the least. I can't blame them, it's what their circumstances demand.
I do think our view of the poor is in medicine is largely skewed. I don’t believe most poor are trying to clog up the healthcare system; but those are the patients we are exposed to
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Funny how little has changed over the past 50 years.

Interview with Dr. Robert Simon

"Bob Simon, who says he’s “probably the only Republican at Cook County Hospital,” may have compassion for the working poor, but he’s quick to note where he draws the line. And he doesn’t care who’s offended. “I did not come here to help the bum on the street–the alcoholic or drug addict who comes to the ER 40 times a year just to get a place to sleep. I didn’t come here for ‘the homeless,’ because I’ve worked for 18 years in emergency medicine–I know what ‘the homeless’ really are. I’m not a liberal. Die-hard liberals talk about ‘the homeless.’ If they actually saw what they’re defending I don’t think they’d be so die-hard. Most of the homeless really don’t care about themselves or are psychiatrically impaired. You can give them any opportunity in the world, and they would not take advantage of it. They could do things for themselves, but they won’t. So who the hell cares about them? To me, society wastes enormous energy, money, and resources on them. I can say this, as I come from a family of 16 children whose income was less than one-third of the official poverty level.”

Simon was the 13th child of 16 in a family of Lebanese immigrants. He grew up in Detroit in a Lebanese-Italian neighborhood, near Gate 12 of the Ford Motor Company. His father’s name was originally Abdul-Jalil, but some anonymous official at Ellis Island dubbed him Simon when he immigrated near the turn of the century. When his father’s first wife died after the birth of her 12th child he returned to Lebanon to find a second mate. Bob Simon was the oldest of her four children.

“My father was a common laborer, a complete illiterate. He worked at Ford Motor Company and was an unpaid union organizer for the United Auto Workers. He worked with Walter Reuther, and he was at the ‘Gate 12 massacre’ when other union organizers were killed. In those days auto workers were treated like slaves. But he died condemning the unions of today. ‘Now they spend 95 percent of their time defending the 5 percent of workers who are derelicts and don’t deserve their jobs.’ That’s not what he made those sacrifices for.”

The family depended on a nearby Salvation Army thrift shop to clothe themselves. Simon remembers a 25-cent overcoat that got him through the Michigan winters during high school.

He won full scholarships to college and medical school, entering Wayne State University in 1968. His intensity and single-mindedness got him through the college premed courses in just two years, even though he was also working washing trucks and busing tables. “I used to average about four hours of sleep a night, then every ten days or so I’d sleep for eight or ten hours. I didn’t know what the scholarship situation would be, and I wanted to get done with it.” From 1970 to 1974 he attended medical school at Wayne State and worked nights as a janitor.

After doing his internship at Detroit General Hospital, he spent three years in Michigan’s upper peninsula working in an emergency room and spending a couple of days a week working with an orthopedist or a plastic surgeon. In 1978 he did his residency in emergency medicine at the University of Chicago, then went to UCLA, where he practiced and taught and wrote. He’s the author of five books, two of them classics in the field of emergency medicine, and about 50 journal articles."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your parents got abused and taken advantage of; meanwhile, today, their equivalents have even worse prospects. Now you've been convinced to defend the system that did that to your family and wave it around as a point of pride.

His parents were “taken advantage of” because they moved to a land of opportunity (likely from a place they were actually persecuted or truly poor, like my parents), worked hard, and succeeded and their kids are likely now wealthy after 1 generation?

Hmm… that’s an interesting perspective. I guess they should have moved, been told there’s no need for jobs- we’ll give you food/shelter/healthcare while you raise fat/lazy kids who will in turn live off the government for the next few generations. Lol.
 
Yea the bottom 90% of poor people's wealth is absolutely due to their hard work. However, in the case of 0.1% it is almost always family wealth

Actually studies show only about 50% of ultra-wealthy in the USA have part of that from inherited wealth and 25% of them started truly w poor families (not even upper middle class).

That being said, I agree the tax/investment/ loophole situation is highly favored for these individuals to retain the wealth once they get it. Physicians and most of the “rich” making 300k-1 million a year do not remotely fall in this category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
His parents were “taken advantage of” because they moved to a land of opportunity (likely from a place they were actually persecuted or truly poor, like my parents), worked hard, and succeeded and their kids are likely now wealthy after 1 generation?

Hmm… that’s an interesting perspective. I guess they should have moved, been told there’s no need for jobs- we’ll give you food/shelter/healthcare while you raise fat/lazy kids who will in turn live off the government for the next few generations. Lol.

Yes, taking people with no better options and forcing them to work decades while barely surviving and taking no vacations for the hope that their child will have a better life is taking advantage of someone.
 
  • Hmm
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Do you (or @emergentmd) believe it is false that your financial success is primarily attributable to your hard work? Do you believe it is false that people suffering from homelessness do so primarily because they made bad choices leading them to their current situation?
If we can agree that there is no way to eradicate homelessness, poverty then this is what I believe.

If you put me into 95% of the poverty family environment, I would be successful to a varying degree. Yes there will be 5% of the environment that will force to me make choices that risk putting me in jail or even die.

My greatest trait is high morality and outworking others. So if everyone had the same morality and work ethics, poverty would be about 5%. Do that after a few generations, then poverty would be miniscule.

If you took all the homeless people and place them in highly functional affluent families, I would be a good amount would end up homeless. Eventually poor decisions will catch up to them.
 
Top