Pretty amazing stuff

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
dpoke1 said:
Please move this thread to the bowels of SDN please :confused:
Awe... we was havin' some fuuuun. Is it really that inappropriate for pre-meds to be talking about this in our favorite forum? As soon as we get a good, quick band and forth moving everyone wants it pitched. Le sigh... I sway with the will of the Evo no less.

Members don't see this ad.
 
dopaminophile said:
Awe... we was havin' some fuuuun. Is it really that inappropriate for pre-meds to be talking about this in our favorite forum? As soon as we get a good, quick band and forth moving everyone wants it pitched. Le sigh... I sway with the will of the Evo no less.

I just figured, I would be the one to step up this time and start the charge. Very soon from now this will be an AA debate with the root cause being MCAT scores :laugh:
 
dpoke1 said:
I just figured, I would be the one to step up this time and start the charge. Very soon from now this will be an AA debate with the root cause being MCAT scores :laugh:
heh... maybe! I haven't been around long enough to get too pissed at a plethora of AA threads. I still like to argue about anything and everything! If we're being pests, I'll stand beside you and give the thread my right boot.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
^
I find it funny that this thread, which is full of flames, is actually still here.

Again, can someone really show me how the doctor talking more to black patients is so bad? Is it not better that the doctor took more time to explain things to blacks then to whites? Could an article like this be made to show that there is a prejudice to whites because the doctor is not spending the time (i.e. explaining things more clearly) to the whites then to the blacks. Could someone not deduce that, because of the lower ratio [and again, we are talking about a difference of 0.2 in the ratio] that whites have to drag information kicking and screaming out of the doctors?
 
Have you figured out what the difference is between "disparity in care" and "prejudice" yet, dopaminophile? Also, have you managed to rationalize how being prejudiced about race does not equal racism?

If not, better keep at it.
 
kinetic said:
We started out by noting that there were disparities and health care and YOU ALL screamed prejudice.
To reference your previous post... No, I never blamed it solely on prejudice or even racism for that matter. See the following
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=2107826&postcount=24

However, do I think that racial biases are reflected in disparities! Of course! Do I think other factors are at play here? Of course! We all have biases against something (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) However, we need to be aware of how we act in regards to these biases
 
Siggy said:
^
I find it funny that this thread, which is full of flames, is actually still here.

Again, can someone really show me how the doctor talking more to black patients is so bad? Is it not better that the doctor took more time to explain things to blacks then to whites? Could an article like this be made to show that there is a prejudice to whites because the doctor is not spending the time (i.e. explaining things more clearly) to the whites then to the blacks. Could someone not deduce that, because of the lower ratio [and again, we are talking about a difference of 0.2 in the ratio] that whites have to drag information kicking and screaming out of the doctors?
Keep in mind that the ratio doesn't indicate time, only who's doing the talking. There isn't any mention of actual time spent with the patient (as I recall). What the difference in ratios indicates is that with minority patients, the doctor does most of the talking in the consultation, which isn't a good thing. One of the things that they teach in medical school is good interviewing practice. You want the patient to come out with information and do as much of the talking as possible. That's where the issue lies, doctors listen more to white patients and talk less.
 
Ah, but if you don't think this study indicates that there is prejudice, then why are you yammering on and on? After all, you only jumped in when I took issue with dopaminophile's use of the word "prejudice." Thanks for agreeing with me that this study -- valid or not -- does not demonstrate prejudice.

Also, please explain this post because I don't know what I was thinking when I read it:

MadameLULU said:
Study after study has shown that non minority physicians are more likely to communicate less or even prescribe inferior treatment to blacks and other minorities.

After all, if non-minority physicians are providing inadequate/inferior care specifically to minority patients, what exactly are you getting at? :laugh: Sounds like more of the typical "I didn't say 'prejudice' specifically, so that's not what I meant ....I just heavily implied it in such a manner as to be fairly specific that was what I meant!" (Reference dopaminophile's "it is prejudiced on the basis of race ...which isn't racism" logic.)
 
dopaminophile said:
Keep in mind that the ration doesn't indicate time, only who's doing the talking. There isn't any mention of actual time spent with the patient (as I recall). What the difference in ratios indicates is that with minority patients, the doctor does most of the talking in the consultation, which isn't a good thing. One of the things that they teach in medical school is good interviewing practice. You want the patient to come out with information and do as much of the talking as possible. That's where the issue lies, doctors listen more to white patients and talk less.

So, if I'm talking to my doctor about a condition that I have, he isn't supposed to talk then? I'm supposed to magically come up with the information about my condition by myself? As you said, there is no indication of time, thus we really can not conclude anything about this study. Again, the doctor could just be spending more time with the black patient and explaining his/her condition in more detail.

But I digress, saying that a disparity could be benifitial to a minority goes against the vast left-wing conspiracy about how every white person is a racist.
 
kinetic said:
After all, you only jumped in when I took issue with dopaminophile's use of the word "prejudice."

No. I jumped in before you started yapping.

If you're going to edit your posts, you can at least write "EDIT"!
 
Wrong again. Here's you jumping into the middle of me ripping into dopamineophile for his interpretation of "prejudice."

MadameLULU said:
kinetic said:
Ah, so now a difference in health care equals "preconceived judgements or opinions." Ain't life grand for liberals? It's great because you guys all pat each other on the backs about stuff like this and so you figure you must be right.

Wrong. Preconceived judgements or opinions can lead to disparities in health care.
 
MadameLULU said:
You are literate, so what is there to explain?

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing that you were implying racism.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
kinetic said:
Exactly. Thanks for agreeing that you were implying racism.

<sigh> I didn't imply that...you are just misinterpreting it. I think you have a problem with understanding the difference b/t racism and prejudice. Why don't you follow your own advice, and look the terms up.
 
yay...i want to get flamed....so i'll just put it out there.

racial and ethnic health disparities are a result of prejudice and racism.

here's some text of an article for those who are interested (its too long to fit)....

By Spring Gombe
Reprinted from METRO Exchange, March 2000

A year ago, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the REACH 2010 project. The acronym stands for Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health. Its intention is to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health by the year 2010.

As the leader of a community-wide consortium, the Institute for Urban Family Health, a New York City based family practice organization, was one of 32 groups nation-wide to receive a grant to create a program to change health outcomes. The Institute's project focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular disease in people of color in the Southwest Bronx.

Here are some facts: Women in the Southwest Bronx have rates of death from diabetes that are close to twenty times higher than women on the Upper East Side. They are five times more likely to have preventable hospitalizations – hospitalizations that could have been avoided by adequate primary and preventive health care. Overall, people in the Southwest Bronx are about twice as likely to have diabetes or hypertension, or die of heart disease. These facts echo well know national statistics – that white men live, on average, ten years longer than black men; white women, six years longer than their African-American counterparts.

A group of community-based organizations in the Southwest Bronx is gearing up to change these facts. The Institute for Urban Family Health, St. Edmund Episcopal Church, Mount Hope Housing Company, the Women's Housing and Economic Development Corporation (WHEDCO), and the Center for Health and Public Service Research at New York University have joined hands to create the Bronx REACH 2010 coalition. The group has already been joined by representatives of roughly twenty more community groups. Through resources provided by CDC, this group has initiated a community- wide exploration to understand and address barriers to health. Already, we have learned that our solutions must reach far beyond the health care system itself.In a series of informal conversations with community members we have found that certain barriers to health are frequently mentioned. These include:

Poverty
"The pills cost a dollar fifty each, I take ten pills a day. I can't afford a dollar fifty each."
"They (fitness centers) want 275 dollars a year, all at once. Which person on Medicaid has 275 dollars up front? I don't have 275 dollars, that's my rent! Maybe if they said ten dollars a month…"

For the people of the Southwest Bronx, poverty is already a critical barrier to access to affordable housing, medication, health, and other social services. More than half of our community receives Medicaid. For our population, making choices in the system often means choosing between medicine and food, rent and medicine.

Getting to health centers can be difficult enough. Obtaining the best care when you are on Medicaid or uninsured can be almost impossible.

Money is also a factor in making the lifestyle changes that would contribute to a lower risk for disease – healthier foods are often unavailable in our communities – when they are, they are frequently priced out of reach. The same is true about fitness centers, weight loss clubs, counseling, and other services that help people make difficult lifestyle changes. Clearly, we will not reduce health differences for different populations without addressing this issue.

Stress
"Poverty, unemployment, racism, drugs, violence."

These factors came up again and again as the leading causes of stress and illness. And everyone we spoke to said they felt people of color had higher levels of stress than whites. It is commonly known that stress aggravates hypertension, which increases risk for stroke and heart attacks. The social and economic barriers to a sense of wellness could well be increasing our populations risk for disease.

If we are to combat ill health then, it seems an integrated approach will have to be taken which includes the creation of strategies to address the myriad factors that influence health which fall outside the health care system: economics and education are high on the list.

Over the years, the Mt. Hope Housing Company, St. Edmund Episcopal Church, and WHEDCO have created such initiatives as "Drugs Out" to mobilize community members to improve their living environments. Other successful initiatives include housing, daycare, employment and after-school programs. These organizations' partnership in the Bronx REACH 2010 consortium is an outgrowth of their commitment to improving community life and making the Bronx a safe and attractive place for families, individuals and investment. With effort, we hope it will be a healthier place too.

Trust
"Doctors come here to train on us, and then go somewhere else to practice."

The issue of trust has been raised on several occasions, and is a pivotal one for the African American community. Who does not remember the Tuskegee study? Learning about the study, and other similar events, is an integral part of African-American history. More current research, including a recent study on cardiovascular disease, confirms that African-Americans receive worse care than their white counterparts, even when they have the same income, insurance, and medical history. The impact is devastating. Not only do African-Americans live shorter lives than whites, they suffer worse health care outcomes on a variety of measures. If they are diabetic, they are more likely to have limbs amputated; if they have breast cancer, they are more likely to die. Yet, if their justified mistrust causes African-Americans to avoid the health care system altogether, the result only aggravates the problem.

Health Care System
"I haven't been to the doctor since 1991"
"I feel like a mutt or some kind of jackass when I go."

These were some of the responses we got to a question about how people felt when they last saw a medical provider. More than half the people we've spoken to feel powerless and abused at the hands of the health system. Many received such poor treatment at their last visit that they have opted out of the system altogether. One person had not been to the doctor in ten years, despite a family history of diabetes. The fault lies not with the individual, but with the system.

The majority of people we've spoken to feel that they are regularly treated without respect, ignored, negatively stereotyped, given the run-around, and that staff is rude. What we have found from these conversations is paralleled by other studies. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation Survey found that one in three people of color shares this experience.
 
kinetic said:
Wrong again. Here's you jumping into the middle of me ripping into dopamineophile for his interpretation of "prejudice."
Actually, I posted on this thread before you did and proceed to post when you kept jumping to absurd conclusions.
 
MadameLULU said:
<sigh> I didn't imply that...you are just misinterpreting it. I think you have a problem with understanding the difference b/t racism and prejudice. Why don't you follow your own advice, and look the terms up.

Oh, I see, we're going to play the dopamineophile game. OK, what's the difference between "prejudice based on race" and "racism"? I'll confess that I thought they were one and the same, but if you know they aren't then I'm open to being educated.
 
Excellent article... thanks!

In case you were dissappointed.. FLAME FLAME FLAME AHAHAHAA







flame
 
uclabruin2003 said:
yay...i want to get flamed....so i'll just put it out there.

racial and ethnic health disparities are a result of prejudice and racism.

here's some text of an article for those who are interested (its too long to fit)....

By Spring Gombe
Reprinted from METRO Exchange, March 2000

A year ago, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the REACH 2010 project. The acronym stands for Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health. Its intention is to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health by the year 2010.
[long article... blah blah blah... I don't like the spam when a long article gets quoted]

Congradulations. You just proved that those with more money gets better health care. Yes, health care follows money trends. Upperclass>Middle class> Lower Class.

This is not racism, this is capitialism.

Thx for playing.
 
Siggy said:
Congradulations. You just proved that those with more money gets better health care. Yes, health care follows money trends. Upperclass>Middle class> Lower Class.

This is not racism, this is capitialism.

Thx for playing.
Yeah, but should health care be a commodity in a strictly capitalist industry? If that's the case, there will be winners and losers. The difference between health care and all other industries is that in health care, the losers die. If that's happening, I don't think medical professionals are doing their job.

Now this is going to sound strange, but I'm not willing to give up on capitalist health care just yet. I do think that we need to insert social safety nets so that people don't die when they are unable to compete. Medicare and Medicaid just aren't effective enough. There are 44 million people in our country without any coverage. It is unethical to allow that to continue.

-dope-
 
Summary: bring on the socialism.
 
kinetic said:
Wow, talk about a ******ed study. This is your typical "I want to find something and surprise! I did!" study. This study is predicated on a false assumption that is quite glaring, and that is that the black patients are completely impartial people who are completely unbiased. That's how you can tell that this study was either (a) constructed by *****s or (b) constructed to "prove" that whitey be racist. Why not ask whether black patients act differently to white physicians versus black physicians? Oh, wait, no ...that would imply that the black patients were the ones who were racist and we all know that this is impossible. Or, alternatively, we could spin it to say that they acted differently ONLY BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE WHITES WERE RACIST. That's even better. Or, we could bring in 200 years of oppression or something.

Studies like this are hilarious because they let you know what the RESEARCHER wants you to think, rather than what the data actually shows. Another example is this: studies consistently show that male patients interact differently with female physicians. Now, if we went by the SAME POSTULATE as with the white-vs-black study, we would have to say that the females were to blame and who had to be more sensitive and unbiased to their patients. NO, YOU WOULD BE WRONG, SUCKAH!! It's the men at fault for being sexist against the women! See how that works?? It's awesome because I get to choose who is the bigot! And you know who I'm gonna pick!! YEE HAWW!!!!!



Umm, the black patient study has been done and yes, black patients were more comfortable, vocal and assertive with black physicians. Instead of looking at this in terms of racism, perhaps it would be better to look at it in terms of identifying potential obstacles in delivering good patient care. There are many reasons why a black patient might be more comfortable with a black physician and many reasons why a white physician may not communicate as well with a black patient. Nonetheless, the observation tells us that there are some potential difficulties in cross-cultural patient-doctor relationships of which we should be aware and attempt to address.
 
uptoolate said:
Umm, the black patient study has been done and yes, black patients were more comfortable, vocal and assertive with black physicians. Instead of looking at this in terms of racism, perhaps it would be better to look at it in terms of identifying potential obstacles in delivering good patient care.

It is impossible to avoid looking at this study in terms of racism because that is what the study is about: a systematic and concerted (if perhaps unconscious, but that's even worse) effort on the part of white physicians to treat black patients in a different and inferior manner. Or, if it is not about racism, please explain how the results of this study can be explained in a non-racist way.
 
dopaminophile said:
Yeah, but should health care be a commodity in a strictly capitalist industry? If that's the case, there will be winners and losers. The difference between health care and all other industries is that in health care, the losers die. If that's happening, I don't think medical professionals are doing their job.

Now this is going to sound strange, but I'm not willing to give up on capitalist health care just yet. I do think that we need to insert social safety nets so that people don't die when they are unable to compete. Medicare and Medicaid just aren't effective enough. There are 44 million people in our country without any coverage. It is unethical to allow that to continue.

-dope-
Yes, because socialism works:

1. Just like canada
2. Because so many people would want to be doctors at 50k a year. Yes, there would be more motivated doctors (because they aren't in it for the money), but does that mean care would be better (the doctors might not have much to lose also).
3. Because the hospital I work at (even though it is non-profit [grant it, non-profit also means no/low taxes]) is basically doubleing its size (I'll be honest, its Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach) (grant it, its only adding 80 beds, but is also allowing an expansion of the ER, radiology, and consolidating current services so it will also be faster) because Hoag doesn't make a profit. If the hospital makes money, it will be able to pay its employees better and expand/maintain both the current services and the building.

No matter if you enjoy the fact that some people fall throught the cracks, better healthcare for most, best healthcare for some, with bad healthcare for some is poor then bad healthcare for all.
 
visualwealth said:
With black patients, the doctors were 23 percent more verbally dominant, according to the study. The ratio of physician comments to patient comments was 1.5 among whites -- meaning that doctors made three comments for every two patient comments -- and 1.7 among blacks.

"That suggests that in the visits of African-American patients, patients are talking less and asking fewer questions," Cooper said.

And as previously noted, this is hilarious. A difference in comments of 0.2, which equates to 23% (the eye-grabbing number) more "verbal dominance." Nice way to manipulate statistics, eh?
 
Siggy said:
Yes, because socialism works:

1. Just like canada
.

Now that is funny, yeah, socialism works, just like Canada :laugh: :laugh:
 
medic170 said:
Now that is funny, yeah, socialism works, just like Canada :laugh: :laugh:
Following quotes from this article:
http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html (and yes, I will grant that it is a libertarian website, so it is somewhat biased. But 2 biased sites tend to give good coverage of both the benifits and the costs (one will rabidly say its bad for x,y, and z while the other says it is good for x, y, and z).

Even if a Canadian wants to purchase basic private insurance besides the public coverage, he cannot find a private company legally allowed to satisfy his demand.
It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.
Although participating doctors may not charge more than the rates reimbursed directly to them by the government, theoretically they may opt out of the system. But because private insurance for basic medical needs isn't available, there are few customers, and less than one per cent of Quebec doctors work outside the public health system. The drafting of virtually all doctors into the public system is the first major consequence of legally forbidding private insurers from competing with public health insurance.

The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital.
At zero price, no health services would be supplied, except by the government or with subsidies. Indeed, the purpose of a public health system is to relieve this artificial shortage by supplying the missing quantities. The question is whether a public health system can do it efficiently.

Government controls also have caused misallocations of resources. While doctors are in short supply in remote regions, hospital beds are scarce mainly in urban centers. The government has reacted with more controls: young doctors are penalized if they start their practice in an urban center. And the president of the Professional Corporation of Physicians has proposed drafting young medical school graduates to work in remote regions for a period of time.

it goes on and on and on...
 
Siggy said:
Yes, because socialism works:

1. Just like canada
2. Because so many people would want to be doctors at 50k a year. Yes, there would be more motivated doctors (because they aren't in it for the money), but does that mean care would be better (the doctors might not have much to lose also).
3. Because the hospital I work at (even though it is non-profit [grant it, non-profit also means no/low taxes]) is basically doubleing its size (I'll be honest, its Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach) (grant it, its only adding 80 beds, but is also allowing an expansion of the ER, radiology, and consolidating current services so it will also be faster) because Hoag doesn't make a profit. If the hospital makes money, it will be able to pay its employees better and expand/maintain both the current services and the building.

No matter if you enjoy the fact that some people fall throught the cracks, better healthcare for most, best healthcare for some, with bad healthcare for some is poor then bad healthcare for all.
Now, see, I didn't say I'm an advocate of socialized health care. I said I'm an advocate of social safety nets, not even unlike the ones that are already in place. Go back and read what I said... you'll get it.

No matter if you enjoy the fact that some people fall throught the cracks, better healthcare for most, best healthcare for some, with bad healthcare for some is poor then bad healthcare for all.

The problem with this is that health care isn't good now and the 44 million "some people" that you're saying is okay to let fall through the cracks don't just get bad health care, they get no health care. That, to me, is unacceptable. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it's possible to institute social programs that pick up where capitalist industry drops off.

Furthermore, don't knock socialized medicine based on one example. The most successful health care program in the world in terms of covering everyone, getting excellent health care fast, and keeping costs down is.... tada! Cuba. I was surprised too, but it's true.

I'll say it again, I'm not willing to give up on a capitalist health care industry, but 44 million people, 10 million people, or even 1000 people in this country alone "falling through the cracks" is just unacceptable.

-dope-
 
visualwealth said:
And while doctors may be partly to blame for poor communication, Cooper suggested that black patients can learn to do a better job of asserting themselves. They can "realize that it's OK to ask more questions and share more information, to give their opinions about what kinds of treatments they would prefer. Those are the big take-home messages." :eek:

i have noticed with ppl that, oh no, they are different!!! :eek:

anyways sure, some ppl will almost be scared to talk to a doctor, and others wont shut up. depends on the person.

still other people may have trouble communicating to a doc because the doc has not learned to talk in terms the patient can understand. while you may mock this, wether the patient is white, black, yellow, green, or purple, the communication still has to be there. if you cannot effectively communicate, then the patient is probablly missing out on a lot of need to know info.

i have talked to numerous ppl on various topics that i was perceived as the expert on. many of them knew very little to nothing about it, so i have to tell them what they need to know, in terms they can understand. this is something that should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said... lol did you all understand any of that?? :D
 
Siggy said:
Yes, because socialism works:
No matter if you enjoy the fact that some people fall throught the cracks, better healthcare for most, best healthcare for some, with bad healthcare for some is poor then bad healthcare for all.
I find this statement either naive, uninformed, unsympathetic, or indoctrinated... cant decide which :smuggrin:
 
Well, you know what they say. If your not a liberal by 21, then your cold or heartless.

If your not a conservative by 30 then your poor or uneducated.

Take your pick. I'm either ahead of the curve, or cold and heartless.


/sarcasm
 
dopaminophile said:
Furthermore, don't knock socialized medicine based on one example. The most successful health care program in the world in terms of covering everyone, getting excellent health care fast, and keeping costs down is.... tada! Cuba. I was surprised too, but it's true.

I'll say it again, I'm not willing to give up on a capitalist health care industry, but 44 million people, 10 million people, or even 1000 people in this country alone "falling through the cracks" is just unacceptable.

-dope-

The trouble with socialized medicine is not always practical, its a matter of political philosophy. It is impossible to philosophicaly justify LIMITED socialization because any argument inevitably becomes a slippery slope to a system of complete social based medicine.

You seem to be a very pragmatic individual and it doesn't sound like Siggy is so much (I'm more concerned with the theoretical myself as well).

Health care is a comodity not an absolute right. You know what tells me that? It's too difficult to define as an inherent right. Here's the example, I say I have a right to free speech and througout history I can go back and say this right should always have existed...people have always communicated thoughts and ideas and I can say they should have the right to do that without limitation.

Now, I say everyone has the right to health care and what does this mean? You may say that everyone is entitled to some preset standard of care. First, healthcare and the standard of care is constantly changing - so today I have a right to a CT scan but fifty years ago, no such luck. What about points in time when healthcare did more harm than good? Did my ancestors living in caves have the RIGHT to get hit over the head with a club to get rid of their headaches? How can it be inherent if positive healthcare hasn't even existed for all of human history. Second, this is obviously pragmatically impossible from a financial standpoint.


BTW, as you probably could've guessed, I think the original study is full of holes and wouldn't trust it...
 
Siggy said:
Well, you know what they say. If your not a liberal by 21, then your cold or heartless.

If your not a conservative by 30 then your poor or uneducated.

Take your pick. I'm either ahead of the curve, or cold and heartless.


/sarcasm

I am also cold and heartless.
 
USCTex said:
The trouble with socialized medicine is not always practical, its a matter of political philosophy. It is impossible to philosophicaly justify LIMITED socialization because any argument inevitably becomes a slippery slope to a system of complete social based medicine.

You seem to be a very pragmatic individual and it doesn't sound like Siggy is so much (I'm more concerned with the theoretical myself as well).

Health care is a comodity not an absolute right. You know what tells me that? It's too difficult to define as an inherent right. Here's the example, I say I have a right to free speech and througout history I can go back and say this right should always have existed...people have always communicated thoughts and ideas and I can say they should have the right to do that without limitation.

Now, I say everyone has the right to health care and what does this mean? You may say that everyone is entitled to some preset standard of care. First, healthcare and the standard of care is constantly changing - so today I have a right to a CT scan but fifty years ago, no such luck. What about points in time when healthcare did more harm than good? Did my ancestors living in caves have the RIGHT to get hit over the head with a club to get rid of their headaches? How can it be inherent if positive healthcare hasn't even existed for all of human history. Second, this is obviously pragmatically impossible from a financial standpoint.


BTW, as you probably could've guessed, I think the original study is full of holes and wouldn't trust it...
I always get frustrated with a slippery slope argument because it's applicable to any argument and it's impossible to prove or disprove other than by example. Fortunately, in the case of injections of social thinking into a strictly capitalist system, there are plenty of examples of how well it works. Most notably, take America's approach to capitalism. An absolute purist would have no taxes, no government projects, no social security, no medicare or medicaid, no education, no insurance, and nothing else that would involve redistribution of funds. Fortunately, what we do is inject redistribution, "socialist," seeds into our government to structure our capitalism and catch those that "fall through the cracks." The idea being that the unproductive are more of a drain on the productive if they are not absolutely destitute. This is precisely the original idea of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare. We as a society will not accept the impovershment of our own people because a) it is inhumane and b) it behooves us to not allow anyone to become too poor. In order to protect our own, we create social safety nets like I was talking about earlier.

My point is that if there is a slippery slope, we're already on it and it doesn't seem to be too steep.

You mentioned that it is too difficult accept a right to health care as an inherent right. When I first started thinking of health care as a right rather than a commodity, I went through exactly this same thought process. John Locke figured that the right to property is an extension of one's right to exist. (Possessions being an extension of the body, itself being an extension of the soul.) If we buy into that, which we all clearly do, then even before possessions, freedom of speech, habeus corpus, or any of that, comes the right to exist. I see the right to a healthy body as a key component of the right to exist. Thereby, health care is a right rather than a commodity.

Furthermore, you ask at what level does the right end and the privelage begin? I agree, that's a difficult question. We're not obligated to provide somebody with calf implants, but it'd be horrible to choose liver transplant benefactors based on their ability to pay. Perhaps the only way to place a line is by following public opinion. Create a health care czar like Cali's insurance czar. I know... *gasp* regulation!!

I think because health care is so unique in it's criticality, *gasp* regulation is the only answer. Other critical industries ran great under heavy regulation until they were deregulated (power, airlines, steel). It can work; it doesn't have to be like Canada. Through heavy regulation, insurance reform, and tort reform, we can make cost managable and make some level of health care available to everyone. I think, personally, that such a system could reduce cost enough that society (tax payers, insurance members) would see a marked decrease in their own cost of living.

Good post, I look forward to your thoughts.

-dope-
 
The fundamental problem with healthcare as a right is that you are taking from someone else. Property rights is not the same. If I assert my right to do what ever I want to do on my property (with in reason, of course), then I will no infringe on someone elses right. It is my property.

Health care, on the other hand, untilizes the abilites of another human being. If you claim that you have a "right" to a human body, then do I not have the same "right" to demand compensation, at my choosing, for my service? By excerting health care as a right, you infringe on someone else's ability to choose for themselves.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy. Specific specialities are more insulated then others (hospilists, specifically EMPs [as long as they get their paycheck at the end of the week, why should EMPs care (with in reason, again)]), but others (any primary care physician) are not so insulated by you excerting your "right" because it directly takes away from the provider. Health care is not a commody. As physicians, our work and our ability is. I should be able to set what ever price I want for my practice and be left to feel the results. If I set my price too high, then I won't have enough clients to pay for my bills. If I set my price too low, then I should be forced to live with it.

Furthermore, if I know that I can claim healthcare as a right, then why should I not go to the ED for a hang nail? Is it not my right to be seen in a timly manner? I'm paying for it! Afterall, its my right! Why should I take care of my self? Smoking isn't so bad. Sure, I'll shave a few years off my life, if I don't die earlier anyways. Besides, I can get all the medicine I want to to help keep myself heathy. Afterall, its my right to have healthcare.

Finally, does anyone else notice that the bill of rights is made up 99.99% of what are called negitive rights? We (Americans) do not have freedom of religion or freedom of press, or freedom of speech. Congress shall make no (hence the negitive) law reguarding these things. If we had free speech, then why is slander agaisnt the law? Is it not my right to say what I want? Same for libel! Should I not be able to print what I want? It is my right afterall!

Positive rights are dangerous. People take them to extremes more then negitive rights. Afterall, I don't have freedom of religion. Congress just can't tell me what to worship.
 
visualwealth said:
With black patients, the doctors were 23 percent more verbally dominant, according to the study. The ratio of physician comments to patient comments was 1.5 among whites -- meaning that doctors made three comments for every two patient comments -- and 1.7 among blacks.

How dare they make 0.2 comments more to the black patients! SHAME!

Thats like making 3.4 comments to every 2 comments instead of 3 comments or...making 13.6 comments to every 8 comments instead of 12 comments or...making 17 comments for every 10 comments instead of 15. THAT'S LIKE....TWO WHOLE COMMENTS! (On top of the already long ass 25 comment visit...)

Don't you love semantics?

Edit: I also love that by making these additional 0.2 comments, they have verbally DOMINATED the visit.
 
dopaminophile said:
Most notably, take America's approach to capitalism. An absolute purist would have no taxes, no government projects, no social security, no medicare or medicaid, no education, no insurance, and nothing else that would involve redistribution of funds.

Many of these examples don't redistribute wealth. I can be a purist and not be against all taxes or even social security for that matter. For example, taxes for paved roads or the military. Insurance is a voluntary system of redistribution so I can be for that as well.

So, making America a purist capitalist system would only require us killing all tax funded social services - all forms of welfare, medicaid/care, housing, educational programs, etc.

dopaminophile said:
This is precisely the original idea of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare. We as a society will not accept the impovershment of our own people because a) it is inhumane and b) it behooves us to not allow anyone to become too poor. In order to protect our own, we create social safety nets like I was talking about earlier.

The argument seems to be here, the classic one, if we don't do something now it'll cost us more to do something later. Well, that's clearly not true :). Here's an example of that argument - if we don't provide the poor with welfare then many of them will turn to crime to support themselves and crime has all sorts of costs (the cost to the victim, the cost by the state to imprison or execute someone). There's two problems with this. First, this argument seems to relieve the poor of their responsibility. Just because they don't have any money does not limit their culpability when they commit a crime. Second, the system doesn't have to work this way. I'm going to take a heartless example from a country decidedly non-capitalist (or freedom loving for that matter). How much do you think it costs the state to execute criminals in China? They do it for the most mundane of crimes and two weeks after your sentence you have a bullet in the back of your head. It probably costs a lot less than China would've spent on welfare for those criminals.

Okay that's extreme but the cost to the government tomorrow doesn't have to be greater than today - as the example shows.


dopaminophile said:
If we buy into that, which we all clearly do, then even before possessions, freedom of speech, habeus corpus, or any of that, comes the right to exist. I see the right to a healthy body as a key component of the right to exist. Thereby, health care is a right rather than a commodity.

The right to exist is not absolute and not all absolute rights extend from the right to exist. I say the government may condemn a man to the gas chamber but not hamper his speech even as he is lead in. The real argument raised in the above quote is the right to property stemming from the right to exist. You've sort of hounded your own argument here :) What you are saying is that someone should be able to take my money to help provide healthcare for themselves.

You are violating MY right to property to satisfy someone else's right to healthcare. Because you have set up both rights as stemming from the right of existence we're back at square one. You tried to use Locke's argument to show the right to healthcare as an absolute. However, you have already established the right to property as coming from the basic argument you make for healthcare. Do you see what I'm getting at? You've sort of creating a conundrum.

I agree with all the practical things you say in your final two paragraphs. Since I don't believe that health care will ever really be taken fully out of the governments hands then I agree we probably need a czar for the matter. However, as stated above I still think in the purely theoretical sense that...well it's none of governments business to take my money and redistribute it (and no I didn't make this money off the backs of the poor :D ).

Someday I'm going to run for office and someone is going to find this post and I'm not going to be able to even get elected town crier :).
 
Well said.

My intelligent response to:
Originally Posted by dopaminophile
This is precisely the original idea of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare. We as a society will not accept the impovershment of our own people because a) it is inhumane and b) it behooves us to not allow anyone to become too poor. In order to protect our own, we create social safety nets like I was talking about earlier.


is....HAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
Many of these examples don't redistribute wealth. I can be a purist and not be against all taxes or even social security for that matter. For example, taxes for paved roads or the military. Insurance is a voluntary system of redistribution so I can be for that as well.

I'll give you, social security (in it's original conception) isn't the clearest example of a socialist program in our "capitalist" nation, but taxes and all the rest certainly are. As I view it, any redistribution of wealth is an injection of socialism and counter to pure capitalism. Taxes take money from everybody disproportionately and redistribute them to everybody equally (theoretically). Social Security ideally forces people to save money, the debacle that it is not bot being the best example of that.

For argument's sake, however, lets say that only the things that you mentioned as socialist programs are actually socialist programs. My original point can ride on those, they are a clear disproof of the "slippery slope" argument. In our capitalist economy, we have elements of socialism that do not snowball. Indeed, as I alluded to earlier, these socialist "regulatory" programs can be highly beneficial and work much better than a strictly free-market approach.

The right to exist is not absolute and not all absolute rights extend from the right to exist. I say the government may condemn a man to the gas chamber...

This is precisely why I adamently oppose the death penalty.

The real argument raised in the above quote is the right to property stemming from the right to exist. You've sort of hounded your own argument here What you are saying is that someone should be able to take my money to help provide healthcare for themselves.

What I actually said isn't that the right to a healthy body stems from the right to exist, but rather the right to a healthy body is a component of the right to exist. The Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers are all based on Locke's Treatises (indeed plagarised from them occassionally). The very first right, from which all other rights are born, is the right to exist. To be alive is part of that right! From the right to exist (a.k.a. the right to live with a healthy body), comes the entire Bill of Rights.

Now, you say that it's wrong to use your money to pay for someone else's upkeep. That is exactly what government is for. Lets take something that isn't a right at all. Lets take the war in Iraq, what I imagine is the single largest expendature of our government at the moment. I vehemently disagree with the use of my money to fund that project, but I tacitly consent to it by staying in the country and paying more taxes. I use your money for police protection; I use your money if my house burns down; I use your money for lots of things that you don't benefit from at all. That's why we collect taxes and have a government, to redistribute wealth. We remain viable as a capitalist economy because the slippy slope isn't too steep.

Someday I'm going to run for office and someone is going to find this post and I'm not going to be able to even get elected town crier .

This is particularly funny... I was in an interview and the guy asked me what I would do if I couldn't do medicine at all. I said that I would like to be involved in politics, even to run for office but I didn't think that I could ever get elected. He thought that was funny but I got waitlisted at the school. I think people like you and I who plant ourselves solidly on one side of an issue are getting fewer and farther between in government. There's a mad dash for the middle and pretty soon we won't be able to tell anyone apart. Did anyone happen to see the election bit on Futurama with the two clones running against eachother and who didn't disagree on anything? shivers. The Feds could use a couple of peops like ourselves.

-dope-
 
Siggy said:
Finally, does anyone else notice that the bill of rights is made up 99.99% of what are called negitive rights? We (Americans) do not have freedom of religion or freedom of press, or freedom of speech. Congress shall make no (hence the negitive) law reguarding these things. If we had free speech, then why is slander agaisnt the law? Is it not my right to say what I want? Same for libel! Should I not be able to print what I want? It is my right afterall!

Negative freedom is simply the right of individuals to be free from state interference. Americans are free to choose their own religion, publish what they like and speak as they wish. The Bill of Rights simply prevent the Federal Government from passing laws that restist these freedoms. You do have have free speech, you can slander anyone you wish. Its just that those who are the subject of your ridicule have a right to protect themselves and seek damages in civil (different and disctinct from criminal) law. Go ahead and print whatever you want! The government will not intervene, but if you slander another person then they have an equally important right to seek compensation regardless of the validity of either persons claim.
 
I dont even think it comes down to a question of healthcare-as-a-right. The fact of the matter is, we already pay for healthcare through medicaid. The problem is that, due to the fact that poor people cant afford primary care or preventative medicine, they end up in the ER. This leads to all sorts of practical and financial problems.

First, ER's are clogged with patients who aren't strictly 'emergencies.' This leads to poorer care/etc.
Second, MANY if not most of those patients could have been prevented or treated at an earlier stage if they had access. I'm sure someone has the statistic about how much cheaper preventative medicine is. Suffice to say that the government is ALREADY wasting loads of money for this very reason.

Shifting to a more socialized system could solve these problems. And I havent even mentioned the great waste in overhead and profits in the system due to bloated insurance companies.

Since having 45 million people who cant access healthcare in our country doesnt seem to bother many people, perhaps a strictly financial argument will.

According to this study: - http://www.pnhp.org/facts/nhi.pdf
americans already pay more taxes per capita to finance healthcare than ANY other nation.

pnhp is actually a great site, regardless of whether you agree with them. Lots of studies and statistics/etc.
 
Childe said:
I dont even think it comes down to a question of healthcare-as-a-right. The fact of the matter is, we already pay for healthcare through medicaid. The problem is that, due to the fact that poor people cant afford primary care or preventative medicine, they end up in the ER. This leads to all sorts of practical and financial problems.

First, ER's are clogged with patients who aren't strictly 'emergencies.' This leads to poorer care/etc.
Second, MANY if not most of those patients could have been prevented or treated at an earlier stage if they had access. I'm sure someone has the statistic about how much cheaper preventative medicine is. Suffice to say that the government is ALREADY wasting loads of money for this very reason.

Shifting to a more socialized system could solve these problems. And I havent even mentioned the great waste in overhead and profits in the system due to bloated insurance companies.

Since having 45 million people who cant access healthcare in our country doesnt seem to bother many people, perhaps a strictly financial argument will.

According to this study: - http://www.pnhp.org/facts/nhi.pdf
americans already pay more taxes per capita to finance healthcare than ANY other nation.

pnhp is actually a great site, regardless of whether you agree with them. Lots of studies and statistics/etc.

I see in their methods they inluded a bunch of other things, like health care tax deductions, in their figure in order to fluff their statistics.
 
jefguth said:
Negative freedom is simply the right of individuals to be free from state interference. Americans are free to choose their own religion, publish what they like and speak as they wish. The Bill of Rights simply prevent the Federal Government from passing laws that restist these freedoms. You do have have free speech, you can slander anyone you wish. Its just that those who are the subject of your ridicule have a right to protect themselves and seek damages in civil (different and disctinct from criminal) law. Go ahead and print whatever you want! The government will not intervene, but if you slander another person then they have an equally important right to seek compensation regardless of the validity of either persons claim.

Strange, while it is not physical penalties, who enforces civil litigation? Ohh, the goverment. BTW, I would advise against you asserting your first admendment right in an airport by saying the word "bomb." No one is going to sue you, but you better be sure that your ass is staying in the airport for a while.

Besides, is death threats not a felanoy? How about harassment? While libel and slander are civil, there are plenty of other uses of speech that are either against the law (death threats) or pseudo-breaches of law (i.e. you didn't do anything "illegal" persay, but your still going to be in a bind for a while) like yelling bomb in an airport.
 
Siggy said:
Strange, while it is not physical penalties, who enforces civil litigation? Ohh, the goverment. BTW, I would advise against you asserting your first admendment right in an airport by saying the word "bomb." No one is going to sue you, but you better be sure that your ass is staying in the airport for a while.

Besides, is death threats not a felanoy? How about harassment? While libel and slander are civil, there are plenty of other uses of speech that are either against the law (death threats) or pseudo-breaches of law (i.e. you didn't do anything "illegal" persay, but your still going to be in a bind for a while) like yelling bomb in an airport.
There's a guy named Stanley Fish that argued that the whole idea of freedom of speech is a farce. He said that while we may say things, the content of what we say is guided entirely by what we're fed by media (not just the news media mind you). Clearly this is cyclical as the media guides itself with no clear direction whatsoever. Thereby, people talk and talk and talk and all of it is completely meaningless. Interesting, but sort of self-negating.

It's been over 5 years since I last read Fish's papers, so I may be wrong on the nature of his argument, but I remember the point. There just is no such thing as free speech the way we have it. Much less is there a right to free speech.

hmmm....

-dope-
 
I am by no ways saying that Freedom of Speech is a farce and I am sorry if I led anyone to believe that. What I am saying is that people tend to push their "freedoms" to extremes that is not goverened by their rights. Why is hate crimes not covered by the first admendment (note: I am not asking if extra sentenceing for hate crimes is moral, that is a thread to its self. I am asking why there is no 1st admendment protection for it.)?

If I let loose a racial slur just before I kill someone that is not of my skin color, then why am I getting that extra 20 years? Isn't the entire basis of a hate crime based off of what I have said or written (both should be covered under the 1st admendment) or association, since any other evidence is sketchy, at best? The speech is what elevates a murder to a hate crime, and thus someone could argue that it is violating someone's freedom of speech (grant it, the slippery slope argument for thought crimes is much stronger, imho). This alone makes freedom of speech (which could quite arguably by the most cherished right of the bill of rights) not an absolute freedom.

The same argument could be extended to the *****s on the internet "asserting" their freedom of speech on private bbs (not being directed at anyone in this thread).
 
dopaminophile said:
Furthermore, don't knock socialized medicine based on one example. The most successful health care program in the world in terms of covering everyone, getting excellent health care fast, and keeping costs down is.... tada! Cuba. I was surprised too, but it's true.
-dope-
Is Cuba still forcing all AIDS patients into isolation camps (like a leper colony, no treatment.) I'm sure that does wonders for costs. I'd be very skeptical about the quality and success of their system.
 
just to clear up some dumb posts:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
'hate' isn't necessary for racism.

prej·u·dice n.
1.
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

and lastly,

lib·er·al adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
 
latinfridley said:
just to clear up some dumb posts:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
'hate' isn't necessary for racism.

prej·u·dice n.
1.
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

and lastly,

lib·er·al adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.


I am sorry for being "dumb" oh, wait, I guess I will clear up your misinformed use of English. I assure you, I am not dumb, I can speak out lout just fine.


Dumb adj. dumb·er, dumb·est

1. Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.
2. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans.
3. Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief.
4. Unwilling to speak; taciturn.

;)
 
mwhou said:
Is Cuba still forcing all AIDS patients into isolation camps (like a leper colony, no treatment.) I'm sure that does wonders for costs. I'd be very skeptical about the quality and success of their system.
It had in the past forcefully isolated AIDS patients before the nature of the disease was known. Those that were isolated were actually given some of the best care in the world free and given surroundings that were so lavish (relatively) that many people claimed to be infected who, in fact, were not.

Cuba is one of the world's poorest countries while all indicators of healthiness and physical well-being place the Cuban population equal to, or better than, most first-world countries including the US. Everybody has free access to the best health care that the nation can offer including local annual check-ups, as-needed consultation, free medications, and free care in the event of any disease or injury.

Recently, the dire economic straights in which the country finds itself are threatening the quality of it's health care system. A simple lack of money due to the corruptability of communism and heavy embargos in place by the United States has forced withdrawal of a number of programs and quality of care is beginning to shift away from the masses and toward the select few. The USSR is no longer around to trade with the fledgling state and almost all other trading nations comply with the embargo. This really is too bad; the world had a lot to learn from what was, once, the most successful health care system in the world given the resources available.

-dope-
 
dopaminophile said:
It had in the past forcefully isolated AIDS patients before the nature of the disease was known. Those that were isolated were actually given some of the best care in the world free and given surroundings that were so lavish (relatively) that many people claimed to be infected who, in fact, were not.

Cuba is one of the world's poorest countries while all indicators of healthiness and physical well-being place the Cuban population equal to, or better than, most first-world countries including the US. Everybody has free access to the best health care that the nation can offer including local annual check-ups, as-needed consultation, free medications, and free care in the event of any disease or injury.

Recently, the dire economic straights in which the country finds itself are threatening the quality of it's health care system. A simple lack of money due to the corruptability of communism and heavy embargos in place by the United States has forced withdrawal of a number of programs and quality of care is beginning to shift away from the masses and toward the select few. The USSR is no longer around to trade with the fledgling state and almost all other trading nations comply with the embargo. This really is too bad; the world had a lot to learn from what was, once, the most successful health care system in the world given the resources available.

-dope-

It is a communist nation with a geographical area and population that is only a small fraction of the U.S. I can't believe anyone would be envious. If we took all the money we spend on welfare and education(Cuba scores poorly here), and directed it towrds healthcare, we too would look good in that arena. Is being healthy that great if you are poor, uneducated, and oppressed.
 
Top