Rescission of Offer

[Kthanksbye]

I'm glad I already substantiated it privately before posting my initial comment, anticipating your doubt with extreme precision! There is an 800 million dollar difference in GDP between red and blue states including a 6k/capita difference. Obviously, the economy would be hard pressed to really function if any states seceded. However, the blue states are a bigger part of the US economy than the red ones even though they are less in number and population. BOOYA!

Fine. Join Canada. See if anyone misses you. But if you look at an accurate map of political persuasion, most so-called blue states are actually very red indeed. There is a very large gerrymandering problem with how districts are determined and how an entire state gets categorized as red or blue.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Drogba]

Fine. Join Canada. See if anyone misses you. But if you look at an accurate map of political persuasion, most so-called blue states are actually very red indeed. There is a very large gerrymandering problem with how districts are determined and how an entire state gets categorized as red or blue.

Dude, those are not states. Also, everyone knows the rich vote republican so if the red people (I'm not being non-PC here and referring to native americans, if they left there wouldnt be a big economic effect) left we'd be f$%%ed.

Oh and an interesting little factoid about canada. Their income taxation as a percent of GDP is less than the US's. Certainly, you wouldn't miss me if I moved to canada since I could still post on SDN.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Dude, those are not states. Also, everyone knows the rich vote republican so if the red people (I'm not being non-PC here and referring to native americans, if they left there wouldnt be a big economic effect) left we'd be f$%%ed.

Oh and an interesting little factoid about canada. Their income taxation as a percent of GDP is less than the US's. Certainly, you wouldn't miss me if I moved to canada since I could still post on SDN.

Of course they're not states. That's my point. You have to look deeper to find the truth. I'm not sure why it matters if a country's income tax is less as a percentage of GDP, you're still individually paying more taxes. Canada actually pays more income tax.

 

[Drogba]

Of course they're not states. That's my point. You have to look deeper to find the truth. I'm not sure why it matters if a country's income tax is less as a percentage of GDP, you're still individually paying more taxes. Canada actually pays more income tax.

We're not taling about the "truth." We are talking about whether my statement was accurate or not. I meant to say that government tax revenue (which is mostly income tax, but admittedly not solely) as a percent of GDP is greater in the US than Canada. Thus, Canada raises less taxes than the US given the size of their economy. This is what my econ text book said but apparently the OECD disagrees. I wonder why this discrepancy exists. Maybe the econ source is not considering state/province taxation. Oh wells.

 

[Kthanksbye]

We're not taling about the "truth." We are talking about whether my statement was accurate or not. I meant to say that government tax revenue (which is mostly income tax, but admittedly not solely) as a percent of GDP is greater in the US than Canada. Thus, Canada raises less taxes than the US given the size of their economy. This is what my econ text book said but apparently the OECD disagrees. I wonder why this discrepancy exists. Maybe the econ source is not considering state/province taxation. Oh wells.

No, you're talking about whether your statement is accurate or not. I'm comparing your statements to reality. The majority of tax in America is actually corporate tax. And it has been proven over and over again that by lowering taxes, the government actually takes in more revenue, you know, increased productivity and all, which is why I would suspect that Canada doesn't bring in as much. They're lazy.

 

[Lshapley]

which is why I would suspect that Canada doesn't bring in as much. They're lazy.

Wow. I haven't been reading this discussion you have been having, but statements like this undermine any legitimate point you might have.

 

[killinsound]

pre-meds have the biggest e-penises in the world.

 

[Drogba]

No, you're talking about whether your statement is accurate or not. I'm comparing your statements to reality. The majority of tax in America is actually corporate tax. And it has been proven over and over again that by lowering taxes, the government actually takes in more revenue, you know, increased productivity and all, which is why I would suspect that Canada doesn't bring in as much. They're lazy.

I never intended reality to enter this conversation. I was keeping in the spirit of the quotes you cited earlier. You had to go and ruin everything though didnt you.

Per the bolded statement, that's only true to a point. It is possible to drop taxes so low that you lose revenue. I'm not sure what the suggested optimal taxation is for corporations in the US or how much argument there is over the fact. I wouldn't at all be surprised if it is less than the current tax though.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Wow. I haven't been reading this discussion you have been having, but statements like this undermine any legitimate point you might have.

No it doesn't. It's actually consistent with my point. In an informal message board, if someone such as myself characterizes the Canadians as lazy because they don't have the same productivity as Americans, it could be assumed to be tongue-in-cheek, and not serious. But the morality police (you) can take it out of context and say that I'm being a bigot. However, if I were giving a speech to a national audience (Kerry) or talking on national television (Ferraro) and said similar bigoted things in all seriousness, then assuming that I'm either totally insane (which may be true) or an ignorant bigot would be the only logical conclusion. Context is always important.

 

[Lshapley]

I don't care if you make stupid and ignorant statements. But, if you are trying to actually debate someone here (which it appears you are not), than you shouldn't make such asinine statements. However, it appears you are just trying to start a yelling match.

Ok thanks bye, I'm not responding to this so feel free to have the last word.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I don't care if you make stupid and ignorant statements. But, if you are trying to actually debate someone here (which it appears you are not), than you shouldn't make such asinine statements. However, it appears you are just trying to start a yelling match.

Ok thanks bye, I'm not responding to this so feel free to have the last word.

Ok...I'm thinking you ought to forward my comments about the Canadians to the admissions committees where I am interviewing. Some of them may be Canadian or have friends who are Canadian. It might make them think twice about accepting me.

 

[Nessy]

I'm new to sdn, and just read this long/interesting thread. Does anyone know what ultimately happened to this "student"?--Did he get to his plan B school? I feel sorry for him and his Dad.
Oh, and what does "MSTP" mean?--Sorry, I'm new and am a freshman in college. Tx.

 

[bubbachuck]

Medical Scientist Training Program i.e. National Institutes of Health-funded MD/PhD training program

look it up on wikipedia

 

[HumidBeing]

I'm new to sdn, and just read this long/interesting thread. Does anyone know what ultimately happened to this "student"?--Did he get to his plan B school? I feel sorry for him and his Dad.
Oh, and what does "MSTP" mean?--Sorry, I'm new and am a freshman in college. Tx.

Don't feel sorry for the student. Feel sorry for any school that may have wound up taking him in as an MSTP. Feel sorry for whatever student DIDN'T get that spot because this jerk was able to pull the wool over the adcom's eyes long enough to get in. Feel sorry for his future patients if he got in. Just don't feel sorry for him.

 

[coldweatherblue]

wow, it's almost unbelievable that someone could go through his entire undergrad education with good enough stats and LsOR to get into an amazing program like Duke and then be stupid enough to get drunk and offensive.

 

[Orbo]

Anyone else notice how much more intelligent the posts became when transitioning from April to these past few days?

Well, it was for a while anyway.

 

[Vihsadas]

Fine. Join Canada. See if anyone misses you. But if you look at an accurate map of political persuasion, most so-called blue states are actually very red indeed. There is a very large gerrymandering problem with how districts are determined and how an entire state gets categorized as red or blue.

A geographic map depicting color over different land areas that completely ignores population density and how that marker relates to political leanings is a skewed statistical device at best. Perhaps if you altered the perceived land mass of those areas with the highest population density to be larger than all those little midland 'red areas' that make up the majority of your map, this representation would be very different. This is not proof of your point, and does not substantiate your argument. What is important when considering 'what is blue' and 'what is red' is population density, not geographic land area.

 

[Drogba]

A geographic map depicting color over different land areas that completely ignores population density and how that marker relates to political leanings is a skewed statistical device at best. Perhaps if you altered the perceived land mass of those areas with the highest population density to be larger than all those little midland 'red areas' that make up the majority of your map, this representation would be very different. This is not proof of your point, and does not substantiate your argument. What is important when considering 'what is blue' and 'what is red' is population density, not geographic land area.

 

[45408]

I'm glad I already substantiated it privately before posting my initial comment, anticipating your doubt with extreme precision! There is an 800 million dollar difference in GDP between red and blue states including a 6k/capita difference. Obviously, the economy would be hard pressed to really function if any states seceded. However, the blue states are a bigger part of the US economy than the red ones even though they are less in number and population. BOOYA!

$800 million? Out of the nation's GDP of $13,194,700,000,000? Is that supposed to be a lot?

 

[Kthanksbye]

Wow. I haven't been reading this discussion you have been having, but statements like this undermine any legitimate point you might have.

Actually, I'm thinking of reporting my own post to the mod. I mean, really, what was I thinking, calling Canadians lazy. How utterly reprehensible. I deserve a warning, at least, if not banning altogether. Med school would definitely be out of the picture for someone who would say such a thing.

 

[notdeadyet]

Wow, thanks for the graphic, Kthanksbye. I've always heard about the high taxes Canadians pay and this refutes it nicely.

According to the graphic, Canada pays about 32% in taxes compared to our 29%. For an extra 3%, they get free healthcare! In fact, since your average American spends about $4,500 per year on healthcare and the average income is about $32,000/year, that more than offsets it.

Cheers! I'll pass this link on to friends that refute every observation of free Canadian healthcare and other better social services with "Yeah, but they pay somuch more in taxes!" They don't!

 

[Orbo]

Is it really that surprising that Canada's tax rates aren't much higher (if at all) than the States? "Free" healthcare costs money, sure. But how much money did that war cost again? I think it's pretty obvious that our military spending more than compensates for any health care costs Canada's government shells out.

 

[curious lately]

Does anyone know what happened to the OP's son?

 

[Drogba]

Wow, thanks for the graphic, Kthanksbye. I've always heard about the high taxes Canadians pay and this refutes it nicely.

According to the graphic, Canada pays about 32% in taxes compared to our 29%. For an extra 3%, they get free healthcare! In fact, since your average American spends about $4,500 per year on healthcare and the average income is about $32,000/year, that more than offsets it.

Cheers! I'll pass this link on to friends that refute every observation of free Canadian healthcare and other better social services with "Yeah, but they pay somuch more in taxes!" They don't!

Try nearly 7k, your data is old ;]

 

[Kthanksbye]

Wow, thanks for the graphic, Kthanksbye. I've always heard about the high taxes Canadians pay and this refutes it nicely.

According to the graphic, Canada pays about 32% in taxes compared to our 29%. For an extra 3%, they get free healthcare! In fact, since your average American spends about $4,500 per year on healthcare and the average income is about $32,000/year, that more than offsets it.

Cheers! I'll pass this link on to friends that refute every observation of free Canadian healthcare and other better social services with "Yeah, but they pay somuch more in taxes!" They don't!

The question is not complete until one considers the quality of the health care that Canadians are receiving. I would submit that they put up with a lot that most Americans would find unacceptable. Rationing and lack of innovation (2 new drugs in 50 years, for instance) are the norm. And currently, Canada as well as other socialized health care countries like Great Britain are looking at market fixes for their problems.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Is it really that surprising that Canada's tax rates aren't much higher (if at all) than the States? "Free" healthcare costs money, sure. But how much money did that war cost again? I think it's pretty obvious that our military spending more than compensates for any health care costs Canada's government shells out.

Arguing that cutting funding for one expenditure to make funds for another betrays a deep ignorance in how government programs are financed. Do you really believe that if we pulled out of Iraq today, all the money we were spending on the war will suddenly be ear-marked for health care? Or education? Or whatever other cause célèbre is currently floating around the popular consciousness?

 

[Lshapley]

The WHO seems to think that Canada has a much better system. They are ranked 30th overall while we are number 37. We are number 1 though when it comes to how much we pay. Here is the link.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If Canada hasn't introduced a new drug in 50 years, why are so many americans buying drugs from canadian pharmacies? Are all of these drugs 50+ years old? The drugs are developed by multi-national corporations (I am working at one right now!), not by governments.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

The WHO seems to think that Canada has a much better system. They are ranked 30th overall while we are number 37. We are number 1 though when it comes to how much we pay. Here is the link.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If Canada hasn't introduced a new drug in 50 years, why are so many americans buying drugs from canadian pharmacies? Are all of these drugs 50+ years old? The drugs are developed by multi-national corporations (I am working at one right now!), not by governments.

The Canadian pharmacies are selling people U.S. drug company researched drugs.

 

[Kthanksbye]

The WHO seems to think that Canada has a much better system. They are ranked 30th overall while we are number 37. We are number 1 though when it comes to how much we pay. Here is the link.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If Canada hasn't introduced a new drug in 50 years, why are so many americans buying drugs from canadian pharmacies? Are all of these drugs 50+ years old? The drugs are developed by multi-national corporations (I am working at one right now!), not by governments.

Americans want to take advantage of Canadian price controls, which Americans pay for. This makes buying drugs in America more expensive. The problem is, that if everyone did this, soon the pyramid would collapse. Which is why re-importation is a joke that would never work.

See this thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=5938927

Also, I would question the objectivity of the WHO in assessing the US health system. What criteria are they using? Clearly, they have a bias towards government run health care systems, which is one of the factors in your study. This would cause the US to show poorly on the report. Many of these international organizations have a clear anti-American bias, which was probably most apparent when Amnesty International called Guantanamo a "gulag", which discredited them more than the US.

 

[Lshapley]

The Canadian pharmacies are selling people U.S. drug company researched drugs.

About 1/3 are US based. The rest are based in other countries. I would expect that in the coming years, in the interest of cutting costs since the patents are expiring on many drugs, the US companies will begin following the lead of other corporations and set up their Headquarters off-shore. Canada has no big pharma, but Europe has plenty including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and AstraZeneca.

 

[Lshapley]

Americans want to take advantage of Canadian price controls, which Americans pay for.

I was refutting your claims about the drug research. Your argument suggested that the US govt was responsible for drug research when indeed this is the result of the multinational pharma industry.

 

[Orbo]

Arguing that cutting funding for one expenditure to make funds for another betrays a deep ignorance in how government programs are financed. Do you really believe that if we pulled out of Iraq today, all the money we were spending on the war will suddenly be ear-marked for health care? Or education? Or whatever other cause célèbre is currently floating around the popular consciousness?

And your statement reveals your ignorance of the simple fact that money spent is money taken from somewhere.

 

[Lshapley]

Also, I would question the objectivity of the WHO in assessing the US health system. What criteria are they using? Clearly, they have a bias towards government run health care systems, which is one of the factors in your study. This would cause the US to show poorly on the report. Many of these international organizations have a clear anti-American bias, which was probably most apparent when Amnesty International called Guantanamo a "gulag", which discredited them more than the US.

Amnesty International is an NGO. WHO is affiliated with the UN. They are different. Regardless, the US was very comfortable praising Amnesty in the 80's when they were a convenient proxy during the cold war.

So who would give an objective measure of the US healthcare system? By your logic, it would be you. Someone with a clear pro-US bias. The WHO is the most qualified organization for this type of analysis. Perhaps we do so poorly because all other developed nations offer government sponsored healthcare?

 

[Kthanksbye]

Amnesty International is an NGO. WHO is affiliated with the UN. They are different. Regardless, the US was very comfortable praising Amnesty in the 80's when they were a convenient proxy during the cold war.

So who would give an objective measure of the US healthcare system? By your logic, it would be you. Someone with a clear pro-US bias. The WHO is the most qualified organization for this type of analysis. Perhaps we do so poorly because all other developed nations offer government sponsored healthcare?

The UN is definitely anti-American. I know there is a lot of support to ceding sovereignty over to a world based government such as the UN, but that is just foolishness. The UN continuously proves it's worthlessness, and if they are running the WHO, that explains a lot. Didn't you know the UN presided over the largest fraud in the history of the world? Remember the oil for food scandal? Call me crazy, but I personally don't think it's a good idea to have international bodies determining US domestic or foreign policy. Including health care.

 

[Lshapley]

...and you really need to read the source material (like the WHO report) before you start spewing out that it has an anit-US bias. You really sound to me like you are just quoting Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, rather than taking the time to make a sincere and thought out opinion on your own. The WHO report is a global report on healthcare and ranks the US #1 for responsiveness. Why would they do that if they were trying to just attack us? The harsh criticism they have are for sub-saharan Africa, not the US. Please, go to the source and then make your argument. Otherwise, you are setting yourself up to look very bad.

 

[Lshapley]

The UN is definitely anti-American. I know there is a lot of support to ceding sovereignty over to a world based government such as the UN, but that is just foolishness. The UN continuously proves it's worthlessness, and if they are running the WHO, that explains a lot. Didn't you know the UN presided over the largest fraud in the history of the world? Remember the oil for food scandal? Call me crazy, but I personally don't think it's a good idea to have international bodies determining US domestic or foreign policy. Including health care.

All I have to say is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States

I don't usually like to quote wikipedia, but this is a nice, cursory start.

 

[Drogba]

Also, I would question the objectivity of the WHO in assessing the US health system. What criteria are they using? Clearly, they have a bias towards government run health care systems, which is one of the factors in your study. This would cause the US to show poorly on the report. Many of these international organizations have a clear anti-American bias, which was probably most apparent when Amnesty International called Guantanamo a "gulag", which discredited them more than the US.

All they would have to do is include access to care as a criterium and bam the US are 30th. Outcome disparities among social groups, cost of care are other criterias that would paint the US system in a bad light. You can argue whether this criteria reflect the health care system or just the wider social system. Either way something in America is broke. Badly.

 

[Kthanksbye]

All I have to say is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States

I don't usually like to quote wikipedia, but this is a nice, cursory start.

So if the US also has scandals, this gives the UN a pass? Oil for Food was a very big deal. A lot of countries were making out big funding Saddam, criticizing the US at the same time for calling attention to it (France, for instance.)

Btw, I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.

UN anti-American bias

 

[Lshapley]

So if the US also has scandals, this gives the UN a pass? Oil for Food was a very big deal. A lot of countries were making out big funding Saddam, criticizing the US at the same time for calling attention to it (France, for instance.)

Btw, I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.

UN anti-American bias

No, just about the other Canada issue

I am going to abort the conversation now though because I should really get some work done.

 

[Kthanksbye]

All they would have to do is include access to care as a criterium and bam the US are 30th. Outcome disparities among social groups, cost of care are other criterias that would paint the US system in a bad light. You can argue whether this criteria reflect the health care system or just the wider social system. Either way something in America is broke. Badly.

I don't think any serious person is arguing that things don't need to change. The question is how. As you might have guessed, I don't think government has the answer. The point is that we are not going to gain the favor of the WHO until we have a socialist system, no matter what we do.


P.S. A major insurance reform happened when no one was looking. It's called an HSA.

 

[Drogba]

I don't think any serious person is arguing that things don't need to change. The question is how. As you might have guessed, I don't think government has the answer.


P.S. A major insurance reform happened when no one was looking. It's called an HSA.

I'm not that familiar with HSAs, but they don't seem to be the major insurance reform we are looking for that will fix our access or disparity issues. They do seem like a good option for healthy people with money though.