Obama the Socialist

[kraphtymac]

Amen OUdoc.

I'm glad somebody is on here to keep the people impassioned about having other people pay their way through life under control while I'm away.

Now if they'd only open their ears and punch some numbers into their calculators rather than blab back about Bush's failed military tactics in order to make themselves feel more comfortable about somebody else paying their way through life.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[powermd]

Thank you for so candidly sharing your views.

Where should personal responsibility end, and government intervention begin?

I would hope we could agree that government intervention should occur when it is impossible, or inefficient for individuals to provide a given benefit to themselves. Assuming the benefit is an 'important' one that society in general agrees is needed by everyone.

A simple and obvious example might be the police department. Laws apply to everyone, but it would be inefficient to have to sort out who is or isn't paying for police services at the time a crime is being committed. Some people might see a bigger picture in which individuals are safer when criminals can be assured that all laws will be enforeced equally, regardless of who the victim is. If only this were true at the white collar level! Other people might describe a less tangible benefit of living in a community where safety is generally assured.


The fire department provides a similar example, although due to advances in fire safety, some are questioning the need for full time taxpayer funded fire services.

Education might prove to be a more controvorsial example. Personally, I feel that society benefits from having an educated populace. If education were entirely private, and people were forced to choose between cash in their hand, and sending their children to school, too many people would choose the cash. This could lead to a very uneducated population, and, generally speaking, very bad things. I hope we don't have to dissect this one.

Even more controvorsial would be welfare and food stamps. One scenario that upsets conservatives even more than the idea of gay people marrying is the notion that some people, however small a group, may abuse this system that provides needed benefits to many. Imagine a single, pregnant, obese, BLACK woman with six screaming kids chattin' up her fellow residents in the projects about how good she has it livin' on government assistance. Is the steam pouring from your ears yet, or did your entire head explode?

Just some thoughts.

Personal responsibility is about relying on oneself first, and the government last, not the reverse. One example of how the current administration has done that is by providing tax cuts that allow others to benefit by working harder (i.e. - by decreasing the penalty for success in this country).

(i.e. - give the tax break to the fisherman, so he can have more time and money to teach others how to fish (a skill which lasts a lifetime), rather than using the tax break to buy a couple buckets of fish for someone.

Simply, it is not up to the government to babysit someone from cradle to grave. The government should help those who've absolutely exhausted every other mean. (Self, family, church, charity, and then govt.)

And yes, I was talking about trickle-down economics as being why someone who wouldn't get a check in the mail since they didn't pay into the system, would still vote for tax cuts.

A conservative's view of personal responsibility towards the community doesn't involve the government being the wasteful middle-man. So if you're trying to get me to list a bunch of social give-aways from the current admin, you're out of luck.

And not to say that I'm happy w/ the current admin, and how the govt. has grown exponentially. I'm not. I believe in small govt. However, given 9/11, the war, you know, I can give a little here and there.

However, lets not forget that our economy was doing pretty darn good for a few years (after the Bush tax cuts that shallowed out the earlier recession I might add). We seem to be in a bit of a slump right now, but have you noticed that it's AFTER THE DEMOCRATS RETOOK CONGRESS 🙂. Funny how you don't hear much about that on any of the major networks. Hmm, had it been the other way around, it would've been, I promise.

BTW, the right-wing church crowd (of which I'm not a member BTW), is the most charitable group of individuals, bar-none, at the present time.

They don't need the govt. coming in, taking half their earnings and distributing it as it sees fit. They're already doing way more than the average lib, who likes to talk alot of talk.

Cracks me up to see celebs whining about how we have to do this and that to raise taxes, the AIDS crisis in Africa, etc. And then advertise that their monthly drinking water bill is over 10 grand. Nice Madonna.

Bottom line is, on the bottom of every tax return is an option to send additional money. For all those blabbing about not wanting the tax cuts, or not minding if we have our taxes raised, I say "Walk the walk, dude".
Let's see some of those returns.

 

[me454555]

Are you sure about that? 44% voters making less than 50K/yr (who comprised 45% of all voters) voted for Bush in 2004.

A similar proportion voted for Bush in 2000 as well.

I'm fairly sure that had something to do with gay marriage and family values and less to do w/his financial policies

 

[PriorityMed]

Thank you for so candidly sharing your views.

Where should personal responsibility end, and government intervention begin?

I would hope we could agree that government intervention should occur when it is impossible, or inefficient for individuals to provide a given benefit to themselves. Assuming the benefit is an 'important' one that society in general agrees is needed by everyone.

A simple and obvious example might be the police department. Laws apply to everyone, but it would be inefficient to have to sort out who is or isn't paying for police services at the time a crime is being committed. Some people might see a bigger picture in which individuals are safer when criminals can be assured that all laws will be enforeced equally, regardless of who the victim is. If only this were true at the white collar level! Other people might describe a less tangible benefit of living in a community where safety is generally assured.


The fire department provides a similar example, although due to advances in fire safety, some are questioning the need for full time taxpayer funded fire services.

Education might prove to be a more controvorsial example. Personally, I feel that society benefits from having an educated populace. If education were entirely private, and people were forced to choose between cash in their hand, and sending their children to school, too many people would choose the cash. This could lead to a very uneducated population, and, generally speaking, very bad things. I hope we don't have to dissect this one.

Even more controvorsial would be welfare and food stamps. One scenario that upsets conservatives even more than the idea of gay people marrying is the notion that some people, however small a group, may abuse this system that provides needed benefits to many. Imagine a single, pregnant, obese, BLACK woman with six screaming kids chattin' up her fellow residents in the projects about how good she has it livin' on government assistance. Is the steam pouring from your ears yet, or did your entire head explode?

Just some thoughts.

So, what exactly does race have to do with anything? I guess any conservative must be a racist? And it's not just one person behaving like this. What about her 7 kids? Who pays for them? Who teaches them this is unacceptable and helps them better themselves? Who keeps them from getting pregnant/impregnating countless other members of their peer group and perpetuating the cycle?

 

[mochief2000]

Revenue doesn't have to stay the same if the government stops doing things that aren't it's job.

Native Americans are descended from immigrants too. Immigrants from Siberia and possibly Western Europe and Oceania. Anyway...The fact that the US has been populated by immigrants is not a reasonable argument that we must continue to have open immigration. There is no relationship between the two ideas. Just because you've heard that so-called argument so many times doesn't mean that it is valid.

Tell me which jobs should they cut? which job is so unimportant that we can cut it to lower your taxes. I am just showing you where the argument will go. There is to much spending in washington, I do believe you. The problem arises on which one to cut.

native americans may have descended from immigrants but they were here first. So essentially they cannot be immigrants. It like the some northern african tribes like the hausa which claim middle eastern ancestory. They still where are the original inhabitants of their countries. So Native Americans can't be immigrants every one else is. I never said that we should open are boarders, stop putting words in my mouth. I even said that it is those rich companies exploiting cheap labor. Which, by the way, Obama is against. My point was that every decade or so it a fight on a new immigrant, everybody is a immigrant at some point in time.

 

[mochief2000]

I'm fairly sure that had something to do with gay marriage and family values and less to do w/his financial policies

So true. The architect Karl Rove had Bush go after that middle class Christian group and it worked. they really didn't care about his economic policies as they did about his church. It's kinda funny, because the same can be said about Obama. Alot, don't even know his policies, as they do that he is likable and Black.

 

[powermd]

So true. The architect Karl Rove had Bush go after that middle class Christian group and it worked. they really didn't care about his economic policies as they did about his church. It's kinda funny, because the same can be said about Obama. Alot, don't even know his policies, as they do that he is likable and Black.

This is how the rich trick the poor into voting against their own economic interests. Pick a wedge issue and go to town. It's truly repugnant.

 

[powermd]

So, what exactly does race have to do with anything? I guess any conservative must be a racist?

You tell me.

I have always SUSPECTED that many conservatives/neo-cons/Republicans are the way they are because they hate somebody or something. Listen to their rhetoric. It's always full of anger or indignation. Do you hate blacks, gays, women, children, immigrants, poor people, and/or foreigners? Are you rich and white? Do you want to be rich and white? Join the Republican party, you'll fit right in. Even if you don't.

 

[mochief2000]

Two words. Meep merp.

You MIGHT want to actually READ my post before you attack it. We should totally support people with disability--TRUE disability. Not people who have 8 kids and use THEM as a disability. And I'm talking about AIDS in OTHER countries, not our own. I was listing it as an example of our priorities. Why spends millions on other countries when healthcare in our own is inadequate.

And I do have something against the ILLEGAL immigrants... because they don't pay into our system but expect to get the 50,000 video EEG when they have pseudoseizures. That is wrong no matter WHICH way you cut it. Pay in to receive. Just like the golden rule. I wouldn't give you 50,000 dollars of my OWN money if we didn't have a relationship unless you gave me a REALLY convincing argument--and stepping into a foreign country and "forgetting" to pay your taxes wouldn't be one!

Step out of the country before you start calling my views narrow. I have a big heart, I'm just not a huge fan of those people that continually take and take and expect more.

I don't have rich friends. I have middle class friends paying too many taxes. The number of luxury--wait, the number of cars period in my close circle is... 1. We all ride bikes.

Once again you are going on a tangent. stick with the points.
How is it that a person with 8 kids is not a disability case. see, I know the ignorant view that you have coming to mind. The easy republican image of black folks on welfare who don't want to get a job la la la. That's the generic image(you don't have to respond to that its what a lot on this forum think but refuse to say because it is politically incorrect). Well cutting welfare will no longer help that mother of 8 who just lost her hard working husband and has to now feed 8 kids by herself. She was fine until she lost her husband. I love being in a country that cares about the welfare of its citizens. Like I said with that issue you have to take the good with the bad. Some government assistance apartments are like a few miles from my home. Have any of ya seen those things? TRUST me, it beyond living poor.
How is our health care in shambles? The reimbursement is in shambles, but not medicine. How is helping other countries bad? Most of the countries we help lack even their basic needs. You are a medical student right? Have you not been on those medical mission trips.
I already told you how to handle illegal immigrants. Tell those REPUBLICAN friends of your to penalize companies that hire illegal immigrans, which Obama the Democrat, plans on doing. Its simple: no job, no income, goes back to country-problem solved.

 

[deleted50478]

Imagine a single, pregnant, obese, BLACK woman with six screaming kids chattin' up her fellow residents in the projects about how good she has it livin' on government assistance.

You've met my neighbors?

 

[kraphtymac]

Once again you are going on a tangent. stick with the points.
How is it that a person with 8 kids is not a disability case. see, I know the ignorant view that you have coming to mind. The easy republican image of black folks on welfare who don't want to get a job la la la. That's the generic image(you don't have to respond to that its what a lot on this forum think but refuse to say because it is politically incorrect). Well cutting welfare will no longer help that mother of 8 who just lost her hard working husband and has to now feed 8 kids by herself. She was fine until she lost her husband. I love being in a country that cares about the welfare of its citizens. Like I said with that issue you have to take the good with the bad. Some government assistance apartments are like a few miles from my home. Have any of ya seen those things? TRUST me, it beyond living poor.
How is our health care in shambles? The reimbursement is in shambles, but not medicine. How is helping other countries bad? Most of the countries we help lack even their basic needs. You are a medical student right? Have you not been on those medical mission trips.
I already told you how to handle illegal immigrants. Tell those REPUBLICAN friends of your to penalize companies that hire illegal immigrans, which Obama the Democrat, plans on doing. Its simple: no job, no income, goes back to country-problem solved.

I am black, man.

I think we should severely punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. However, I'm also not an opponent of putting machine guns on the border and/or chopping off limbs of convicted border crosses, but that would never make it to a vote.

 

[powermd]

You've met my neighbors?

I find it interesting that Republicans choose to get all indignant over this stereotype, without any data to prove how large or small a problem it really is. We spend something in the range of 25-50 billion a year on public assistance. Pretty small potatoes if you ask me. Get indignant over the stereotype of the fat CEO taking home tens or hundreds of millions on the backs of his employees and shareholders as his company goes bankrupt. Not a bunch of people who live in utter squalor and are okay with that if it means they don't have to work.

 

[deleted50478]

I find it interesting that Republicans choose to get all indignant over this stereotype, without any data to prove how large or small a problem it really is. We spend something in the range of 25-50 billion a year on public assistance. Pretty small potatoes if you ask me. Get indignant over the stereotype of the fat CEO taking home tens or hundreds of millions on the backs of his employees and shareholders as his company goes bankrupt. Not a bunch of people who live in utter squalor and are okay with that if it means they don't have to work.

First, that $25-50 billion is far, far from what we spend on the underemployed and their families. This year we will spend $209 billion on Medicaid and SCHIP, $324 billion on unemployment and welfare, etc., $35.2 billion on HUD, and a portion of the other $2 trillion goes to benefit them too.

Second, I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian. People have the right to work as much or as little as they want. They have to decide what's important to them. If they value free time more, then they can make less money. If they value having lots of kids, they can spread their finances thin. What they shouldn't be able to do is have tons of free time, tons of kids, and not spread their finances thin because they can steal our money through a government intermediary. Not working much and having lots of free time is a perfectly legitimate decision, they just have to take the bad with the good.

 

[kraphtymac]

I find it interesting that Republicans choose to get all indignant over this stereotype, without any data to prove how large or small a problem it really is. We spend something in the range of 25-50 billion a year on public assistance. Pretty small potatoes if you ask me. Get indignant over the stereotype of the fat CEO taking home tens or hundreds of millions on the backs of his employees and shareholders as his company goes bankrupt. Not a bunch of people who live in utter squalor and are okay with that if it means they don't have to work.

This is EXACTLY the attitude that is WRONG in this country. 25-50 BILLION is small potatoes. You throw around that number like it's 65 cents at the vending machine for a can of pop. That's a LOT OF MONEY. That is 2,000,000 people making 25,000 a year. Wow. No big deal, just 50 BILLION dollars.

 

[fastosprintini]

sorry to be such a nit picker, but 2000 time 25,000 is "only" 50 millions, not billions.... fasto

 

[deleted77919]

This is EXACTLY the attitude that is WRONG in this country. 25-50 BILLION is small potatoes. You throw around that number like it's 65 cents at the vending machine for a can of pop. That's a LOT OF MONEY. That is 2000 people making 25,000 a year. Wow. No big deal, just 50 BILLION dollars.

You lost a few zeros there. That's 2,000,000 people making $25,000.

Edit: Guy above beat me, I had to break out a sheet of paper to make sure I wasn't going to look really silly.

 

[badgas]

First, that $25-50 billion is far, far from what we spend on the underemployed and their families. This year we will spend $209 billion on Medicaid and SCHIP, $324 billion on unemployment and welfare, etc., $35.2 billion on HUD, and a portion of the other $2 trillion goes to benefit them too.

Second, I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian. People have the right to work as much or as little as they want. They have to decide what's important to them. If they value free time more, then they can make less money. If they value having lots of kids, they can spread their finances thin. What they shouldn't be able to do is have tons of free time, tons of kids, and not spread their finances thin because they can steal our money through a government intermediary. Not working much and having lots of free time is a perfectly legitimate decision, they just have to take the bad with the good.

Great post. No one is entitled to ANYTHING other than life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness. No where does it say that the government is permanently responsible for putting food in peoples mouths, roofs over their heads and cell phones in their pockets. People should provide for themselves.

 

[badgas]

How is it that a person with 8 kids is not a disability case. see, I know the ignorant view that you have coming to mind. The easy republican image of black folks on welfare who don't want to get a job la la la. That's the generic image(you don't have to respond to that its what a lot on this forum think but refuse to say because it is politically incorrect). Well cutting welfare will no longer help that mother of 8 who just lost her hard working husband and has to now feed 8 kids by herself. She was fine until she lost her husband.

Incredibly naive view. For every one case that even REMOTELY resembles the situation that you dreamed up, there are 100 people faking back pain, anxiety, depression and INTENTIONALLY not taking diabetic meds to claim disability. I have had patients with necrotic toes from not managing their diabetes ASK for AKA/BKA so they can get their disability. I have listened to people BRAG about getting disability for their "nerves" and how they are still working on the side for cash. This country is great because EVERYONE has the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. The people who choose to be useless should not be paid for their decision.

 

[kraphtymac]

Thanks for catching and helping make my point... I dropped 3 zeroes because I was thinking "millions".

 

[powermd]

Great post. No one is entitled to ANYTHING other than life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness. No where does it say that the government is permanently responsible for putting food in peoples mouths, roofs over their heads and cell phones in their pockets. People should provide for themselves.

Listen to all that anger and indignation...

You're right, no one is ENTITLED to anything beyond LLPOH. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer privileges that benefit society as a whole. I happen to believe there are benefits to living in a society that chooses to help those in need. Maybe you're ready to martyr yourself to the "every man, woman, and child for themselves" cause, but that's not going to be a popularly held view. I bet if you were down on your luck and needed welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance, you'd be thankful it was there. Not everyone is a mooch who abuses the system. $hit happens to good people. I'd like to see some proof to your claim that for every person in legitimate need there are 100 who are fakers. Personally, I'm willing to tolerate carrying a few losers in order to help people who are legitimately in need.

By the way, do you support capital punishment?

 

[mochief2000]

Incredibly naive view. For every one case that even REMOTELY resembles the situation that you dreamed up, there are 100 people faking back pain, anxiety, depression and INTENTIONALLY not taking diabetic meds to claim disability. I have had patients with necrotic toes from not managing their diabetes ASK for AKA/BKA so they can get their disability. I have listened to people BRAG about getting disability for their "nerves" and how they are still working on the side for cash. This country is great because EVERYONE has the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. The people who choose to be useless should not be paid for their decision.

And you make you assumptions based on what? the people you talk to? Man, if you really believe that you are more than naive. Like I said before, if you give any person the chance to exploit a system they most likely will. I mean our government is not ignorant they see the good and the bad. I trust that the good outweighs the bad therefore they keep the system going even with its faults.

 

[mochief2000]

I am black, man.

I think we should severely punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. However, I'm also not an opponent of putting machine guns on the border and/or chopping off limbs of convicted border crosses, but that would never make it to a vote.

wow, a black man!! good for you. you want a cookie. I guess the only thing we have in common is are skin color, because you are crazy. What kind of upbringing do you have to want to kill someone because of crossing a border. See you at the election booth on the other side.

 

[badgas]

Listen to all that anger and indignation...

You're right, no one is ENTITLED to anything beyond LLPOH. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer privileges that benefit society as a whole. I happen to believe there are benefits to living in a society that chooses to help those in need. Maybe you're ready to martyr yourself to the "every man, woman, and child for themselves" cause, but that's not going to be a popularly held view. I bet if you were down on your luck and needed welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance, you'd be thankful it was there. Not everyone is a mooch who abuses the system. $hit happens to good people. I'd like to see some proof to your claim that for every person in legitimate need there are 100 who are fakers. Personally, I'm willing to tolerate carrying a few losers in order to help people who are legitimately in need.

By the way, do you support capital punishment?

There is no anger in my post. I have been "down on my luck" in the past. And I didn't go crying to the government to support me. I worked my way out of it. My parents have really been down on their luck. Did they go crying to the government for free food and housing? No. My mom got two jobs and they toughed it out. When people fall into a ****ty situation, they should work to get out of it... not just look around and wait for someone else to fix it for them. I am not calling for an end to ALL government assistance... but it does need to get a lot more strict.

Do you really think that there is a "faker" study? I know people who work for SS and have worked in an area where people BRAG (no joke) about getting their disability. I had 3 different diabetic patients in med school try for necrosis of their feet and outright ask for AKA or BKA. It is not one isolated case that I've heard, it has been damn near an entire region of a state. I realize that some people really do need the temporary help, but right now the assistance is so easy to get that many are just using it as supplimental income which is wrong. Giving indefinite assistance in most cases just breeds a generation that does not know how to support themselves.

And on your tangent point, I do not believe in the death penalty.

 

[cfdavid]

There is no anger in my post. I have been "down on my luck" in the past. And I didn't go crying to the government to support me. I worked my way out of it. My parents have really been down on their luck. Did they go crying to the government for free food and housing? No. My mom got two jobs and they toughed it out. When people fall into a ****ty situation, they should work to get out of it... not just look around and wait for someone else to fix it for them. I am not calling for an end to ALL government assistance... but it does need to get a lot more strict.

Do you really think that there is a "faker" study? I know people who work for SS and have worked in an area where people BRAG (no joke) about getting their disability. I had 3 different diabetic patients in med school try for necrosis of their feet and outright ask for AKA or BKA. It is not one isolated case that I've heard, it has been damn near an entire region of a state. I realize that some people really do need the temporary help, but right now the assistance is so easy to get that many are just using it as supplimental income which is wrong. Giving indefinite assistance in most cases just breeds a generation that does not know how to support themselves.

And on your tangent point, I do not believe in the death penalty.

This right here, on a very fundamental level, is the epitomy of paternalism. Governmental programs that allow (intentionally or not) for the development of RELIANCE on such programs is almost an abuse of basic civil rights...... Sure, it's "benign" looking, but very, very damaging to entire communities.

Look at the great cultures of the world. The builders, innovators, and leaders. They've been cultures built around a pioneering spirit with an almost stubborn adherence to the values of self-reliance. I don't think there are any exceptions really.

 

[powermd]

This right here, on a very fundamental level, is the epitomy of paternalism. Governmental programs that allow (intentionally or not) for the development of RELIANCE on such programs is almost an abuse of basic civil rights...... Sure, it's "benign" looking, but very, very damaging to entire communities.

The problem of inner-city poverty and dependance is very complicated and will unlikely be solved by either extreme: full support, or no support. It doesn't help that our capitalistic culture INVITES poor people to make bad choices just to wring a few (billion) bucks of profit out of this vulnerable population. What we need is a nationwide shift in the culture such that building a healthy and productive community is of greater value to individuals than the souless pursuit of cash and status symbols. This is why I support Obama. I don't agree with everything he has planned, and as a soon-to-be private practice MD, his ideas may not be in my short-term financial interest, but this country needs a cultural shift toward greater community stewardship, and the Obama movement portends this shift.

 

[cfdavid]

The problem of inner-city poverty and dependance is very complicated and will unlikely be solved by either extreme: full support, or no support. It doesn't help that our capitalistic culture INVITES poor people to make bad choices just to wring a few (billion) bucks of profit out of this vulnerable population. What we need is a nationwide shift in the culture such that building a healthy and productive community is of greater value to individuals than the souless pursuit of cash and status symbols. This is why I support Obama. I don't agree with everything he has planned, and as a soon-to-be private practice MD, his ideas may not be in my short-term financial interest, but this country needs a cultural shift toward greater community stewardship, and the Obama movement portends this shift.

I agree that we need a greater emphasis on community. I've said it before, in the past, with the robber barons of old, their interests weren't necessarily at odds with those of the average American. While Andrew Carnagie was getting rich off steel and the railroads, he was building up American industry. Average people benefited from higher paying manufacturing jobs (i.e. making things pays better than servicing things). Sure, there were laabor disputes, but there wasn't the extent of DIVERGENCE of interests as we see today between the haves and the have nots.

Today, executives of large corporations can retire anywhere in the world. They can buy, literally, islands. Currency? Who cares. The stakes are such that by making just the right move (regardless of social responsibility and often in spite of it), they can guarantee generations of their family members the security that all people desire. The forces of "corruption" are immense.

That's why to some extent I think multiculturalism in America could become a downfall. There's an inherent lack of communalism in differences in ethnicity, religion etc. So, our "multicultural" society becomes one of individualism at all costs. After all, what is an American?? Increasingly, we have less and less in common with our neighbors. Think about this, and be realistic about the impact this has on decisons we make and the policies we support/adopt. When we adopt zero sum politics/policies, it's the begining of the end. Just throwing out some contrarian ideas.

That being said, I think we can look beyond race/religion to find commonalities. But, it does take a degree of conformity or acceptance of the dominant culure in the U.S. Then, people will become much more generous with their ideas of social policy or responsibility (in general) since they'll be better able to identify with those that fall through the cracks.

Truthfully, as I write this shi..t, I don't friggin know. I'm more conflicted now than ever before. I've lost faith with our government and am very skeptical of what I read or watch in the traditional media. Thank god for the internet......

One thing I have learned though. It's not incomes of 500k/year that dictates trends. It's a global elite of people in the bracket of 500 MILLION (minimum) that really controls international events and policy. So, the guy that makes 500k has a lot more in common with the dude making 50k than either may realize......

 

[kraphtymac]

wow, a black man!! good for you. you want a cookie. I guess the only thing we have in common is are skin color, because you are crazy. What kind of upbringing do you have to want to kill someone because of crossing a border. See you at the election booth on the other side.

Sweet--you're gonna be the old dude wearing a straw hat and passing out "I Voted" pins? Good! We will see you there! And I didn't mention killing, just maiming. Big difference. With the latter you can still go home and tell your friends not to try crossing the border. In the first scenario you go nowhere. Nice grammar, by the way.

"Where you going?"

"Nowhere."

(forgive the Boondock Saints quote)

 

[biogirl215]

Incredibly naive view. For every one case that even REMOTELY resembles the situation that you dreamed up, there are 100 people faking back pain, anxiety, depression and INTENTIONALLY not taking diabetic meds to claim disability. I have had patients with necrotic toes from not managing their diabetes ASK for AKA/BKA so they can get their disability. I have listened to people BRAG about getting disability for their "nerves" and how they are still working on the side for cash. This country is great because EVERYONE has the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. The people who choose to be useless should not be paid for their decision.

As someone with a very obvious, indisputable (yeah... I REALLY doubt I've been faking the inability to walk and lack of fine motor control for my whole life) physical disability, I had to comment on this. I have never received SSI/SSDI and hopefully will never have to, but getting a job when you have a physical disability is hella hard. I couldn't get a job on campus because all the jobs require you to be able to walk, carry things, push things, lift heavy objects, etc. A big part of the reason I decided not to pursue a career in pharmacy was that, looking at the job description, almost all of them had requires like being able to lift 25 pounds, to bend, to knell, to push heavy objects, etc., and I realized very quickly that even if I was able to get into/through pharmacy school (make it past technicial requirements), I would face major barriers in ever actually getting a job as a pharmacist. The ADA is a paper tiger--essentially unenforceable and ill-defined--that gives employers the right to make their job descriptions basically law and decline a request for accommodations on the basis of "undue hardship" (i.e., "I'm not paying for that"). After realizing the realities of the situation, I looked for a field that I would likely enjoy but also where I could meet the requirements for most (but not all, of course--people like employees who can walk) of the jobs.

I've been told I'm a very smart person (I don't feel qualified to judge that myself), I've been involved as a TA and research assistant and gotten excellent reviews from my supervisors. Yet, I know it will be a uphill battle for me to get a job--there's a reason 70%-80% of the people with physical disabilities are unemployed, and it ain't alll laziness or malingering.

I know I've been relatively lucky so far (my disability is not fatal or progressive, I have my mind, my parents have been incredibly supportive of my independence and had the resource and time to invest), so I'm not trying to whine. I'm just trying to point out that "making a living" can be a lot harder with a physical disability than you may think. As to why anyone would purposefully induce a disability, I can't imagine--and I've never known anything different.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[cfdavid]

As someone with a very obvious, indisputable (yeah... I REALLY doubt I've been faking the inability to walk and lack of fine motor control for my whole life) physical disability, I had to comment on this. I have never received SSI/SSDI and hopefully will never have to, but getting a job when you have a physical disability is hella hard. I couldn't get a job on campus because all the jobs require you to be able to walk, carry things, push things, lift heavy objects, etc. A big part of the reason I decided not to pursue a career in pharmacy was that, looking at the job description, almost all of them had requires like being able to lift 25 pounds, to bend, to knell, to push heavy objects, etc., and I realized very quickly that even if I was able to get into/through pharmacy school (make it past technicial requirements), I would face major barriers in ever actually getting a job as a pharmacist. The ADA is a paper tiger--essentially unenforceable and ill-defined--that gives employers the right to make their job descriptions basically law and decline a request for accommodations on the basis of "undue hardship" (i.e., "I'm not paying for that"). After realizing the realities of the situation, I looked for a field that I would likely enjoy but also where I could meet the requirements for most (but not all, of course--people like employees who can walk) of the jobs.

I've been told I'm a very smart person (I don't feel qualified to judge that myself), I've been involved as a TA and research assistant and gotten excellent reviews from my supervisors. Yet, I know it will be a uphill battle for me to get a job--there's a reason 70%-80% of the people with physical disabilities are unemployed, and it ain't alll laziness or malingering.

I know I've been relatively lucky so far (my disability is not fatal or progressive, I have my mind, my parents have been incredibly supportive of my independence and had the resource and time to invest), so I'm not trying to whine. I'm just trying to point out that "making a living" can be a lot harder with a physical disability than you may think. As to why anyone would purposefully induce a disability, I can't imagine--and I've never known anything different.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the input. It's good to hear the other side. In reality though, people generally are for supporting and aiding/facilitating others with real problems. It's human nature, I think. But, what irks the hell out of people is when such things are abused or misused. And, it's people such as yourself that suffer from it because the bad apples tend to get a lot of the attention.

I know a young guy who had an accident when he was in high school (dove into a shallow area of a lake) and is now a quadraplegic. He was an ex's good friend, so I spent some time with this guy. Truthfully, it made me think about what the hell I would do as a career in such a situation, as I reflected on this guys condition.

Are you in medicine? If so, I'd say medicine or research would be a great potential area for someone with a physical handicap. Not surgery or any field requiring manual dexterity (depending on one's deficits), but perhaps psych or something like that.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to see an internist or anyone else for that matter that may be wheelchair-bound for example. I think most people would feel the same way.

 

[mochief2000]

As someone with a very obvious, indisputable (yeah... I REALLY doubt I've been faking the inability to walk and lack of fine motor control for my whole life) physical disability, I had to comment on this. I have never received SSI/SSDI and hopefully will never have to, but getting a job when you have a physical disability is hella hard. I couldn't get a job on campus because all the jobs require you to be able to walk, carry things, push things, lift heavy objects, etc. A big part of the reason I decided not to pursue a career in pharmacy was that, looking at the job description, almost all of them had requires like being able to lift 25 pounds, to bend, to knell, to push heavy objects, etc., and I realized very quickly that even if I was able to get into/through pharmacy school (make it past technicial requirements), I would face major barriers in ever actually getting a job as a pharmacist. The ADA is a paper tiger--essentially unenforceable and ill-defined--that gives employers the right to make their job descriptions basically law and decline a request for accommodations on the basis of "undue hardship" (i.e., "I'm not paying for that"). After realizing the realities of the situation, I looked for a field that I would likely enjoy but also where I could meet the requirements for most (but not all, of course--people like employees who can walk) of the jobs.

I've been told I'm a very smart person (I don't feel qualified to judge that myself), I've been involved as a TA and research assistant and gotten excellent reviews from my supervisors. Yet, I know it will be a uphill battle for me to get a job--there's a reason 70%-80% of the people with physical disabilities are unemployed, and it ain't alll laziness or malingering.

I know I've been relatively lucky so far (my disability is not fatal or progressive, I have my mind, my parents have been incredibly supportive of my independence and had the resource and time to invest), so I'm not trying to whine. I'm just trying to point out that "making a living" can be a lot harder with a physical disability than you may think. As to why anyone would purposefully induce a disability, I can't imagine--and I've never known anything different.

Just my 2 cents.

this is excatly what I have been trying to say. Stop focusing on the bad and see the good that our government is doing. You are a inspiration to us all man. thank you for sharing view.

 

[mochief2000]

Sweet--you're gonna be the old dude wearing a straw hat and passing out "I Voted" pins? Good! We will see you there! And I didn't mention killing, just maiming. Big difference. With the latter you can still go home and tell your friends not to try crossing the border. In the first scenario you go nowhere. Nice grammar, by the way.

"Where you going?"

"Nowhere."

(forgive the Boondock Saints quote)

And I guess you are the black guy wearing, "Vote or Die" tee shirts and not voting. why did have to bring ebonics into the mix (by the way I love the bondocks). Maiming, killing all the same. trust me, I will tell all my friends to stay away from any angry black republican they see. He may be holding a machete.

 

[Lonestar]

you know, i have always said this. If people like powermd want to donate their money to the needy, then let them put their money where their mouth is. Oh wait a minute, this initiative has been tried in multiple states and it has failed miserably. NOBODY WANTS TO DONATE THEIR MONEY BACKING THEIR POSITION. They want everyone else to do it. There are plenty of rich liberals out there, they could certainly "follow their passion". HYPOCRITES.

so as it stands right now, my taxes will be raised in the future (democraps in both house and senate = repeal of bush tax cuts), my social security will not be worth a damn (thanks to the boomers; democraps = no solution). If obama is elected, we will be weaker in national security and will have to pay even more taxes to cover his "insure everyone, but no quite hillary" program. Great things to look forward to. He will make the Bush presidency look like an era of economic stability and security. Just imagine Nancy Pellosi (i will not listen to my own party members about wiretapping people), Harry Reid, and Barack Obama getting together to decide the future of this country. GOD HELP US ALL.

 

[powermd]

you know, i have always said this. If people like powermd want to donate their money to the needy, then let them put their money where their mouth is. Oh wait a minute, this initiative has been tried in multiple states and it has failed miserably. NOBODY WANTS TO DONATE THEIR MONEY BACKING THEIR POSITION. They want everyone else to do it. There are plenty of rich liberals out there, they could certainly "follow their passion". HYPOCRITES.

Feel the anger and outrage...

There's no love in this post at all.

We can all gripe about what the government spends our money on that we don't agree with.

For example, I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND 750 BILLION DOLLARS ON THE F*KING IRAQ WAR. Hmmm, why don't the WARHAWKS who WANTED THIS WAR "PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS." Oh, wait, they don't have 750 billion of their own money to spend. F*KING HYPOCRITES!!

In fact, why don't we just do away with government all together. Hell, I CAN SPEND MY OWN MONEY MUCH BETTER THAN THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT?

Your logic is totally bogus Lonestar.

You may not like social programs. Maybe you would prefer to just CUT OFF FOOD STAMPS TO THE HUNGRY AND KICK HOMELESS FAMILIES OUT ON THE STREET. But as a country, we have decided we want these things. And whether you realize it or not, these programs (flaws included) benefit you by creating a more secure society.

Like chaos? Try Mogadishu. I hear it's lovely this time of year.

I'll end on something constructive: Instead of calling to scrap social programs, whether or not you value the good they try to do, why don't you simply demand that they be run efficiently? Instead of crying "big government sucks", try "bad government sucks."

 

[starsop93]

You tell me.

I have always SUSPECTED that many conservatives/neo-cons/Republicans are the way they are because they hate somebody or something. Listen to their rhetoric. It's always full of anger or indignation. Do you hate blacks, gays, women, children, immigrants, poor people, and/or foreigners? Are you rich and white? Do you want to be rich and white? Join the Republican party, you'll fit right in. Even if you don't.

AMEN!!!

 

[PoorInvestment]

Maybe its just because I've mellowed with time, but I've become more moderate over the years. Here's the deal, I live in the upper midwest - the whitest, most homogenous part of the country so far as I can tell. Not wanting to support social programs has nothing to do with being racist, being Republican, or being just plain evil. My thinking is such: I have no issue helping people (why the hell else would I be working to become a physician?) What I have a problem with is the person whom I am supporting has no interest in trying to exist without my support. There is a very fine line between helping out and handing out. Give people enough assistance to pull themselves up, but if they aren't interested, why should the rest of us cough up cash to help them? Its not cruel, it is, at least to me, logical. As far the whole tax issue. I'm not an economist by any stretch, I skipped econ through most of undergrad. What I recognize is that a great portion of the taxes I will be spending in the future will go to excessive spending on stuff that I will never, ever even know about. It will get lost in piles of red tape and "administrative costs" and never be heard from again. I will pay my share if I know it's going somewhere but pushing even more of my income into an increasingly convoluted system makes my stomach turn a little. Hell, have you guys/gals seen the Medicare manual? There is no way ANYONE knows what is in there. Just seems unreasonable to take my money and not justify where you're going to put it. You can keep howling change all you want. I need concrete examples of how my life will benefit. Otherwise the only change will be a different face and a new set of status quo BS. Just what I think ya'll.

Best health,
PI

 

[cfdavid]

PowerMD, for the record, NeoCons are not even "true" Republicans. I encourage everyone to see what elements have infiltrated the Republican Party of the past decade or so.

Guys like Norman Podhoretz were socialists for most of their adult political lives.

Seriously, just google "neocon" and see who these people really are. For a more "colorful" experience go to youtube and search "neocon" or even "AIPAC" for that matter. Then reflect on our current foreign policy in the middle east. THEN, think about who exactly is pushing for war against Iran which we need like we need a hole in our head. These people do not represent true Republican values of small government and non-intervention/imperialism, and they are very dangerous IMHO.

 

[powermd]

Maybe its just because I've mellowed with time, but I've become more moderate over the years. Here's the deal, I live in the upper midwest - the whitest, most homogenous part of the country so far as I can tell. Not wanting to support social programs has nothing to do with being racist, being Republican, or being just plain evil. My thinking is such: I have no issue helping people (why the hell else would I be working to become a physician?) What I have a problem with is the person whom I am supporting has no interest in trying to exist without my support. There is a very fine line between helping out and handing out. Give people enough assistance to pull themselves up, but if they aren't interested, why should the rest of us cough up cash to help them? Its not cruel, it is, at least to me, logical. As far the whole tax issue. I'm not an economist by any stretch, I skipped econ through most of undergrad. What I recognize is that a great portion of the taxes I will be spending in the future will go to excessive spending on stuff that I will never, ever even know about. It will get lost in piles of red tape and "administrative costs" and never be heard from again. I will pay my share if I know it's going somewhere but pushing even more of my income into an increasingly convoluted system makes my stomach turn a little. Hell, have you guys/gals seen the Medicare manual? There is no way ANYONE knows what is in there. Just seems unreasonable to take my money and not justify where you're going to put it. You can keep howling change all you want. I need concrete examples of how my life will benefit. Otherwise the only change will be a different face and a new set of status quo BS. Just what I think ya'll.

Best health,
PI

What you're saying is perfectly reasonable. You want to see results. You want to teach more people to fish, and hand out less. You want good, effective government. I think government is a convoluted mess for a lot of different reasons, but I think the most important one is lack of trust in individuals to make good decisions. We spread out power with committees, etc in order to ensure 'fairness'-- but efficiency goes right out the window. A "good" government, would find a way to solve that problem. GW Bush kind of had the right idea, but screwed up by appointing incompetents to important positions.

 

[biogirl215]

Are you in medicine? If so, I'd say medicine or research would be a great potential area for someone with a physical handicap. Not surgery or any field requiring manual dexterity (depending on one's deficits), but perhaps psych or something like that.

I'm considering medicine, but the more I look into it, the more implausible it seems, just because of my lack of physical strength and poor manual dexterity, especially when looking at technical requirements for admissions and the resquite skills required for specialities in general (it seems like the only speciality I could even have a realistic chance at would be psych). AAMC publishes a booklet about medical students with disabilities that could be more accurately titled "Why you don't have to let any disabled students into your medical school" (https://services.aamc.org/Publicati...version37.pdf&prd_id=131&prv_id=150&pdf_id=37 is the pdf version, if anyone's curious). Given the extent and nature of my disabilities, medicine seems unlikely, so if I can't do that, I'm considering going into clinical psych or clinical social work, so I still have the opprotunity to work in a similar field..

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to see an internist or anyone else for that matter that may be wheelchair-bound for example. I think most people would feel the same way.

I don't think it's so much individual people's biases (though there is a some of that) as it is that employers set up jobs for able-bodied people and don't want to take the time/energy/cost to accommodate someone with a disability. A lot of job descriptions have physical requirements that you really wouldn't expect of them--I once saw a job for an accounting job with the requirement to be able to lift 25 pounds... WTF?--because employers simply expect everyone to have standard physical abilities, and if you don't, you simply aren't as "useful" as someone who does.

I know a young guy who had an accident when he was in high school (dove into a shallow area of a lake) and is now a quadraplegic. He was an ex's good friend, so I spent some time with this guy. Truthfully, it made me think about what the hell I would do as a career in such a situation, as I reflected on this guys condition.

Sorry about your friend--as someone who was born disabled, I've often thought myself relatively lucky, as I don't know what I'm "missing," so to speak.

I think a real issue is that society at large just doesn't know what to do about the employment of people with physical (and probably other types of) disabilities--it often seems like they expect disabled children to either be cured or disappear when they turn 18. I honestly don't know if the expectation if that we'll be dependent on family or the state or that they don't realize the various issues with getting a job when you have a physical disabilities or if just they just never think about it at all.

Again, I hate to sound like I'm complaining. Like I said, I know things could be or get a lot worse and that some people with physical disabilities do have jobs (I hope to be one of them!), but it is a problem--70%-80% unemployment is ALARMINGLY high.

Sorry to get way off-topic here.

 

[EM2BE]

My question is that if the whole Obama thing happened and if they decided to fund med school (not the Obama thing obviously), who will pay for the education of those who have finished med school and have the loans? Would they pay the loans off/forgive them or would those people still be held accountable, just not the people coming in?

Just found this thread and I enjoyed reading about people's ideas (but I only got through half the posts). I need to go back to studying, but wanted to put in my 2 cents just in case it hasn't been brought up yet.

 

[Coastie]

The problem of inner-city poverty and dependance is very complicated and will unlikely be solved by either extreme: full support, or no support. It doesn't help that our capitalistic culture INVITES poor people to make bad choices just to wring a few (billion) bucks of profit out of this vulnerable population. What we need is a nationwide shift in the culture such that building a healthy and productive community is of greater value to individuals than the souless pursuit of cash and status symbols. This is why I support Obama. I don't agree with everything he has planned, and as a soon-to-be private practice MD, his ideas may not be in my short-term financial interest, but this country needs a cultural shift toward greater community stewardship, and the Obama movement portends this shift.

By community stewardship you mean communism (because after all, people are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves in a capitalistic world, right?) , and by Obama movement, you mean thoughts from a "leader" with no accomplishments and empty promises of an undefined hope?

Intriguing.

 

[powermd]

By community stewardship you mean communism (because after all, people are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves in a capitalistic world, right?) , and by Obama movement, you mean thoughts from a "leader" with no accomplishments and empty promises of an undefined hope?

Intriguing.

By community stewardship I mean people taking a greater interest in the well being of other people in their community, and promoting legislation to that effect.

For example, to make big gains in improving public health we're going to have to have some impact on improving control of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. What is the major barrier to treating these conditions- patient compliance. What are some key factors in patient compliance? Diet, exercise, and medication management. Individual physicians may admonish their patients to comply on these factors, but the patient goes back out into the community where he or she is bombarded with incentives to ignore these critical aspects of their care. People eat poorly because it's cheaper, less time consuming, brings instant gratification, requires no kitchen skills, and it's what glitzy advertising influences them to do. People don't exercise because it's uncomfortable, time consuming, and expensive (gym access). People don't take appropriate medications because they aren't yet diagnosed, don't have a doctor/insurance, and they don't appreciate the benefits of compliance.

These problems are not going to be solved from the "provider" end. "Pay-for-performance" isn't going to solve these problems. These are community problems and require community-wide (as opposed to individualized) solutions. In other words, our culture has to change toward helping each other, since people clearly can't do it on their own.

 

[deleted50478]

Instead of the community stewardship/dictatorship idea, maybe people could be encouraged to take an interest in their own health. We could stop the PC BS where people are viewed as victims and point out the absolute fact that people bring the vast majority of health problems on themselves. When they stop hearing all the lies and excuses (gym membership required for exercise, fast food because it's cheaper) and hear the truth, maybe they'll realize that they should take some personal responsibility.

 

[powermd]

Instead of the community stewardship/dictatorship idea, maybe people could be encouraged to take an interest in their own health. We could stop the PC BS where people are viewed as victims and point out the absolute fact that people bring the vast majority of health problems on themselves. When they stop hearing all the lies and excuses (gym membership required for exercise, fast food because it's cheaper) and hear the truth, maybe they'll realize that they should take some personal responsibility.

Instead of punishing people for giving in to basic human weaknesses, often exploited by those who can profit from them, perhaps we could support people in making the right choices.

Why don't you take some personal responsibility for helping to maintain the culture that exploits basic human weaknesses, and help change it.

The first step is acknowledging that we all share these weaknesses, but vary in our ability to overcome them. Some people are more vulnerable, and need more support than others. Regardless, the weakness of others will ultimately COST YOU MONEY (what you really care about), so you have a vested interest in helping people. So let's stop with the "personal responsibility" mantra, and recognize our responsibility to each other.

Let's try another example. People used to smoke a lot. Smoking is bad for you. People knew this, but smoked anyway. It was cool. It made you feel good, and satisfied cravings. Eventually people started developing smoking-related illnesses. These cost a lot of money to treat, and sucked up an enormous amount of public funds in the form of medicare dollars. Treating smoking as a problem unique to weak individuals didn't work, but a cultural shift away from smoking did (30% of adults were smokers in 1985, 20% in 2006). Smoking is much less socially acceptable today than twenty years ago. Tobacco firms can't advertise their product in certain venues and media. There are laws in various cities making bars and restaurants smoke-free. Sure, at first some balked, particularly bar owners. Then they shut the hell up, because it didn't hurt business, and was better for everyone.

We need to treat a lot more societal problems the way we have treated smoking- as community problems requiring cultural shifts to solve them. Is this a concept you really disagree with?

 

[cfdavid]

Instead of punishing people for giving in to basic human weaknesses, often exploited by those who can profit from them, perhaps we could support people in making the right choices.

Why don't you take some personal responsibility for helping to maintain the culture that exploits basic human weaknesses, and help change it.

The first step is acknowledging that we all share these weaknesses, but vary in our ability to overcome them. Some people are more vulnerable, and need more support than others. Regardless, the weakness of others will ultimately COST YOU MONEY (what you really care about), so you have a vested interest in helping people. So let's stop with the "personal responsibility" mantra, and recognize our responsibility to each other.

Well, I agree that we all have weaknesses and cravings etc. But, it's not like health food companies, organic food suppliers, low-calorie sweatener makers, the fitness equipment industry doesn't market heavily to consumers as well. Thus, it ultimately DOES come down to personal choice.

The only point I'm willing to give you here is that unhealthy food tends to be cheap as dirt. Thus, one could make the poverty correlation.

BUT, and this is where I come back to culture, nobody is making people be couch potatos, while munching on Fritos. And, if those neighborhoods are lacking in basic security (i.e. an excuse not to exercise)then maybe those residents need to form community watch programs or even take justice into their own hands if it's THAT bad (which I know it is in some areas). But, the culture of gangsterism takes away the youth of those neighborhoods from becoming a part of the solution. It's culture! How do you change that?

And, I'm not just talking about impoverished black communities. This applies across the board, but we as a society need to get VERY INTOLERANT of whatever forces are even remotely involved in promoting this culture of thugism, whether it be large record labels or Hollywood. Whatever, but these are huge problems. Why do you think the young black male incarceration rate is what it is? Because they all received a bum rap in the courts? That can't explain away the statistics, while tempting to some who'd rather point the finger rather than address the core issues.

 

[chocomorsel]

I am black, man.

I think we should severely punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. However, I'm also not an opponent of putting machine guns on the border and/or chopping off limbs of convicted border crosses, but that would never make it to a vote.

Wow, seriously? Do you really think that all these illegal immigrants come here to bleed the system dry? More so it's because they are trying to get some kind of better job, which mostly turns out to be a laborer type job in order to take care of their families back in Mexico. Many americans don't know how good they really have it, and what people would do in order to come here and hopefully find a better way of life to make better wages and take care of their families. These immigrants don't have many options in their native land and we all know of the types of jobs that are available here that many lazy americans would rather not do, but rather take a hand out from the governement. With the vast educational and vocational opportunities that this country has, it amazes me how many people live and CHOOSE TO LIVE at the poverty level and below. Plenty of people in in other countries are busting their asses to get a better education after high school but cannot attain a job even after a master's and PHD level of education. While many people in this country choose not to pursue college or even finish highschool.

Not saying there are lazy bunches in the immigrant group, but for the most part these are some of the hardest working people you will meet, who will sit at the corner all day with his/her friends waiting to be picked up for an odd job here and there for less than $50 daily while many Americans are sitting at the house collecting welfare and playing cards. That $50 bucks goes a long way in third world countries. These for the large part are people who are just trying to find a better opportunity since the economics in their countries will not let them.

Now I do have a problems with the government not allowing them purchase their own health care. I think that they should all have access to the insurance plans we have and pay their own damn way for healthcare. I mean, I doubt realistically that the government can get rid of them, so why not decrease the drainage they are causing our system by allowing them, or even requiring them to purchase healthcare.

Think about what you are saying, and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes who was not fortunate enough to be born in this great country. I am a foreigner by the way, a legal one, but still an immigrant and know what it entails financially and legally to move to the U.S. The vast majority of these immigrants cannot afford to do it the legal way. But yes, they do put a strain in our healthcare.

Anyway, I'm off my soapbox. Waiting on the "foreigners are taking away our jobs" argument now

 

[powermd]

Now I do have a problems with the government not allowing them purchase their own health care. I think that they should all have access to the insurance plans we have and pay their own damn way for healthcare. I mean, I doubt realistically that the government can get rid of them, so why not decrease the drainage they are causing our system by allowing them, or even requiring them to purchase healthcare.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to purchase an insurance plan for day laborer prone to taking hazzardous jobs? Likely $7-10K/yr, which is more than they or their cheap-*** employer can afford.

Wait, you can say a#ss on television, but not on SDN???

 

[PriorityMed]

What you're saying is perfectly reasonable. You want to see results. You want to teach more people to fish, and hand out less. You want good, effective government. I think government is a convoluted mess for a lot of different reasons, but I think the most important one is lack of trust in individuals to make good decisions


For example, to make big gains in improving public health we're going to have to have some impact on improving control of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. What is the major barrier to treating these conditions- patient compliance. What are some key factors in patient compliance? Diet, exercise, and medication management. Individual physicians may admonish their patients to comply on these factors, but the patient goes back out into the community where he or she is bombarded with incentives to ignore these critical aspects of their care. People eat poorly because it's cheaper, less time consuming, brings instant gratification, requires no kitchen skills, and it's what glitzy advertising influences them to do. People don't exercise because it's uncomfortable, time consuming, and expensive (gym access). People don't take appropriate medications because they aren't yet diagnosed, don't have a doctor/insurance, and they don't appreciate the benefits of compliance.

These problems are not going to be solved from the "provider" end. "Pay-for-performance" isn't going to solve these problems. These are community problems and require community-wide (as opposed to individualized) solutions. In other words, our culture has to change toward helping each other, since people clearly can't do it on their own.

How is it that you feel so strongly about having faith in people to "make the right decisions" and yet you have reduced them to junk food eating, sedentary toddlers that reach out and grab anything placed in front of them without a second thought as to whether or not they should? You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you want to be really fat and have diabetes, CHF, etc. Also, if this really is a "community wide" issue, and these people all live in the same communities, how is it that you expect them to affect change?

 

[chocomorsel]

Do you have any idea what it would cost to purchase an insurance plan for day laborer prone to taking hazzardous jobs? Likely $7-10K/yr, which is more than they or their cheap-*** employer can afford.

Wait, you can say a#ss on television, but not on SDN???

Sorry, what I meant was the individual himself be given access to independent health insurance outside of work. You know, the ones you pay an arm and a leg for in premiums then when it's time for your claim to be paid up, they want to deny you or pay a measly sum or make you pay some outrageous deductible first? The ones that people who work for small companies and the unemployed students have to purchase? Oh wait a minute, that's probably the majority of health care insurance in some form or another Don't you love insurance companies.
Anyway, the laborer needs to find and pay for health insurance and not be allowed free healthcare since many of us aren't.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm considering medicine, but the more I look into it, the more implausible it seems, just because of my lack of physical strength and poor manual dexterity, especially when looking at technical requirements for admissions and the resquite skills required for specialities in general (it seems like the only speciality I could even have a realistic chance at would be psych). AAMC publishes a booklet about medical students with disabilities that could be more accurately titled "Why you don't have to let any disabled students into your medical school" (https://services.aamc.org/Publicati...version37.pdf&prd_id=131&prv_id=150&pdf_id=37 is the pdf version, if anyone's curious). Given the extent and nature of my disabilities, medicine seems unlikely, so if I can't do that, I'm considering going into clinical psych or clinical social work, so I still have the opprotunity to work in a similar field..

There was a guy a few years back that graduated med school despite being completely blind. If he can get in/graduate med school, I'm pretty darn sure you can as well. Having a tremor is bad for surgery, having no sight is even worse. Also, have you considered some of the other medical pathways? Psychology springs to mind quite fast as I don't think they require the same rotations as med schools do that you might have problems with.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You're right, no one is ENTITLED to anything beyond LLPOH. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer privileges that benefit society as a whole. I happen to believe there are benefits to living in a society that chooses to help those in need. Maybe you're ready to martyr yourself to the "every man, woman, and child for themselves" cause, but that's not going to be a popularly held view. I bet if you were down on your luck and needed welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance, you'd be thankful it was there. Not everyone is a mooch who abuses the system. $hit happens to good people. I'd like to see some proof to your claim that for every person in legitimate need there are 100 who are fakers. Personally, I'm willing to tolerate carrying a few losers in order to help people who are legitimately in need.

On the whole, I agree that we should try to take the bad with the good. However, I think there is much more bad than most folks realize. I'll give a few fantastic examples. I have a cousin who is on disability for back pain. If this were actually a problem that couldn't be fixed, I'd be OK with basically throwing money at him. That is not the case. His back hurts because he weighs 300+ pounds. Also, despite this crippling back pain he was able to fence in his own backyard last Christmas. Doesn't seem right to me.

I saw a patient in clinic one day who regaled me about her attempts to get on disability. She went from one doctor to the next until one of them finally said "Why yes, your knees are in bad enough shape to prohibit you from working." The fact that she weighed in at 280 5'0 had absolutely nothing to do with her knee problems. Heck, I've seen patients on disability and I couldn't even figure out why from the history, physical, and med list.

Now, that being said, at least where I live there's a big problem with Medicaid. Despite spending huge sums of money hunting for doctors abusing the system, there is not one person who looks into patients abusing it. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a Medicaid patient who couldn't pay their $2 copay despite having a REALLY nice cell phone ($150 even with 2 year plan) and driving a nicer car than the doctor. If you can pay more than $25,000 on a car, get the hell off of my tax money.

Like I said, I've no problem taking some of the bad with the good - but is it unreasonable of me to want a few folks who will occasionally investigate any suspect individuals to make sure they really need government handouts?