Should I not mention my interest in Socialized medicine to schools ??

[Paws]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok, dumb question I know but I thought I would ask: when secondaries ask about "what do you think is a real problem in healthcare today ..." and I delicately say that the HMO's are messing things up and we really need socialized medicine and a system of national health, well do you guys think this is a big no-no ?

😕

I am trying to be so careful and not offend anyone in these essays, but on the other hand, I really do have some opinions ... my feeling is I should just fluff it and try not to sound too radical. Any else wondering?

 

[LapisLazuli]

discuss the problem, but don't be quick to offer a solution. show fresh perspective, and an ability to analyze the dimensions of an issue, but don't force yourself to offer a solution, esp one as questionable as socialized healthcare. save the solutiuons for if the interviewer is bastard enough to ask you for one.

 

[AvgApplcnt]

Hi,

I thought a lot about the same issue and EVERYBODY I discussed it with said don't mention anything about socialized medicine. Most doctors are republicans and like their paychecks. As wonderful as socialized medicine is for patients and society cuz of its lower costs, doctors hate it cuz of the crappy pay.
Private Messag me for an article published in JAMA about Hawaii's almost fully socialized system. They discuss how socialized care keeps healthcare costs way down.

 

[calebho501]

See the way I look at it is that Med Schools want applicants to analyze issues from different perspectives. I support socialized healthcare system too because I grew up in a semi-socialized one.

 

[Moskeeto]

while most doctors are republicans, those that teach at med schools are much more likely to be more liberal. Sometimes you can get a feel for it during your interviews and go for it there. I would avoid anything potentially political in your secondaries tho.
I mentioned socialized medicine in most of my interviews and in most cases it was a great conversation starter and all but one of my interviewers thought it was the future of medicine and that it would be very beneficial. definitely have some good reasons to back up your beleifs tho, because even if they agree with you, they're still gonna grill you to see if you know what you're talking about. Good luck with everything.

 

[Chronotropic]

Just make sure you don't come off sounding like an after school special.

 

[Mike59]

Originally posted by Paws
I am trying to be so careful and not offend anyone in these essays, but on the other hand, I really do have some opinions ... my feeling is I should just fluff it and try not to sound too radical. Any else wondering?

Your interests seem to mirror mine- indeed, you are walking a tightrope when you are motivated by health policy.

My advice- don't be too political in your essays. Your essays should answer the questions without being too controversial. You can be outside the box in other areas of your answer, but do not say anything that could potentially stir the political pot in your reader's mind.

I saved a lot of my political ideas for the interview, and only let it all out when asked by my interviewers. Do remember that you're fighting an uphill battle when you talk about National health insurance- I'm sure many of the more conservative American schools I interviewed at didn't like what I had to say. If you are sincerely interested in a socialized health care system, you should consider working up here in Canada- the system is already in place, without the political hurdles that would be required to get it going in the States. McGill does reserve a few seats for Americans every year (how can you beat that?)😉

 

[Paws]

Thanks everybody, these are really great answers to this question ! I wrote my Stony Brook essay around this topic but I felt like it was a really blah, blah essay because I was trying so hard to be thoughtful but vague. It was excruciating !

My other 2 essays were very focussed and sharp but this one felt like mud ... I said things like: one could possibly learn from the Canadian system of health care ... blah blah.

It was so hard to not say too much that might offend anyone, and yet sound like I really had an opinion in there. I did finally cough up the example of having to pay 1400 for three hours in the ER when I fainted, and how it took me over a year to pay it off - with no health insurance.

I'll see if they call me for an interview and then feel out the tenor of the interviewer.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Dr. Angell is currently on C-SPAN speaking on "socialized medicine"

http://www.pnhp.org/

Damn commies 😡

 

[kito]

Be careful. They may actually ask how you proposed to pay for socialized healthcare, at which point you are screwed.

 

[Mike59]

Originally posted by ankitovich
Be careful. They may actually ask how you proposed to pay for socialized healthcare, at which point you are screwed.

I don't think so. There are plenty of viable answers to that one.🙂
(Would you have said the same thing about the costs of going to war six months ago?)

 

[28129]

Are you kidding me? If there are any practicing doctors on that panel (and there are always a few) they'll reach for that "reject" stamp faster than you can say "Chairman Mao".

Socialized healthcare is not a popular concept in doctor's circles. My Dad is a doctor, and most of his friends are doctors. I can't recall ever in my life meeting a doctor who was in favor of government run healthcare, even in India or England, where I have also lived.

Oh yeah, and talking about "how HMO's have messed things up" is a *****ic cliche. How have they messed things up? What have they messed up?

HMOs have actually cleared up a lot of the abuses that were rampant in the medical system. Older doctors I've spoken to say that back in the 70's and 80's, you could do half the work, and charge twice the money. HMO's have controlled those costs, and checked needless procedures.

Also, my Dad says that working with HMOs is often easier than working with the traditional insurance companies and even the cash only payers, many of whom are deadbeats.

 

[MeowMix]

I would only mention it if you can address the issue with all its complexities, rather than as a panacea. I think the British system is in trouble and the Canadian system is on the way there.

Under the older systems, national health care depended on having a pool of people paying in to the system who didn't use it (the younger people). Also, it used to be that people did not go to the doctor unless they really really needed to. We now have many more health problems among children (allergies, obesity, ADHD, mental illness, etc.); we have high costs associated with infertility and assisted reproduction (including the costs of care for premature babies and multiple premature births); we have coverage for alcohol, drug, and psychiatric treatments that are used by many more people; we have more people living longer, on more medications, etc.. Add to this a common attitude that if one is sick, the doctor should prescribe a pill that will fix everything (with no inconvenient changes in diet, exercise, or lifestyle).

I personally think these are extremely complex issues and that the "fix me" attitude of many patients in the U.S. would bankrupt a national system very quickly.

If anyone can explain to me why my thinking is flawed, I would certainly like to hear your opinion.

 

[calebho501]

Originally posted by MeowMix
I would only mention it if you can address the issue with all its complexities, rather than as a panacea. I think the British system is in trouble and the Canadian system is on the way there.

I agree that cost will be a big issue for a socialized system. In fact, besides higher need for care for the geriatric population and the younger population, people also tend to abuse the system more (Going to physicians when not needed. At where I'm from, people even goto doctors for more medications than they need, than sell the medication out to others!)

The British and possibly the Canadian system compensates the cost with a very high tax rate (British pay so much for tax, but lots of things are covered by the government). Raising the tax in the U.S. to this high will inevitably draw much objection.

Just to be objective, the place I'm from has been talking about switching from a semi-socialized system to managed care. Managed care does have its merits, but of course it's not perfect. Ideally, a socialized system may work well, but perhaps it's also impractical.

 

[HouseHead]

Originally posted by AvgApplcnt
Private Messag me for an article published in JAMA about Hawaii's almost fully socialized system. They discuss how socialized care keeps healthcare costs way down.

I'd like to see that article.

From everything I've heard and seen, Hawaii has been having very big problems with healthcare, more so than elsewhere. The one system that seems to work there- Kaiser (of which I was a member until I left for college)- has been cutting back substantially on their covered services over the last decade. Everyone else with insurance is either on HMSA or their equivalent of Medicaid, Quest (which stopped covering vision in 1996- how are you supposed to get a job if you can't SEE?). That's a little simplistic, but still.

Of course, there are many, many people without any coverage whatsoever. And then there are the people who want to shut down the med school because they think there are too many doctors in Hawaii- Never mind that those are the surgeons (&c.) that retire to the state and just do procedures for wealthy patients every so often, never serving the un- or under-insured majority.

 

[LukeWhite]

The cost issue could work to your advantage if you feel strongly about socialized medicine. As long as you can cogently argue that doctors will have to get by with less (as they do in all sorts of other countries with excellent health), your position will seem reasonable AND you'll actually sound as if you're not in medicine for the money, which is tough to pull off no matter how sincere you are otherwise.

But I'd agree with some of the above posters...don't get overly political. Or to put it another way, couch your discussion of socialized medicine in some sort of real-world anecdote. The adcoms are less interested in people who want to change the world than people who have done a little of the world-changing already.

 

[AlternateSome1]

I think the reason adcoms might not look favorably on saying "Social Medicine is the answer" is not because they are republican, but because these systems are not working any better than ours. Saying we should go to such a system is a bit of a cop out when you don't explain how you plan to pay for such a system, how the system is going to improve the quality of care, how it will not cause waits for services such as in canada and england, and how hospitals will be able to continue to afford cutting edge technology that americans demand. I think it is pretty obvious that there is no EASY solution to the health care system, simply because no one has found one in the last 100 years of attempts. It would probably be better to be able to make minor suggestions that seem doable and address their effectiveness than trying to revamp the entire system in a single essay.

~AS1~

 

[Lara]

Being Canadian, this topic came up a number of times during my application process. Basically I said that I very much appreciated universal coverage and would like to see more Americans have health care access, but that there were problems as well (most especially the waiting times and general doctor shortage) that needed to be resolved. On the whole my interviewers seemed more liberal in this regard than I'd anticipated.

 

[Paws]

These are really interesting comments on a very complex issue; when I wrote my Stony Brook essay, I tried VERY hard to not stand on either side of the issue. I tried to express how complex the situation was, and that no one system was perfect but that we could learn from each one (capiltalistic/HMO vs. National healthcare).

I really do think this is an incredibly complex situation and there are as many opinions as there are people who have them ... still, I think everyon's comments are really interesting and the debate definitely is worthwhile !

 

[voltron77]

I think that if you believe in socialized medicine, go and write about it Paws. Just don't preach to them that this is the only way. Know both sides of the issue and write with passion and honesty. Adcoms know that applicants are diverse and have different opinions and stands on the issues. Good luck and do what makes you feel good......it's your application and not anyone else's...........Stay positive!

 

[bor0101]

i think it is terrible. if you are paying for school a lot(and your parents dont qualify for financial aid) and have to make all the changes in your lifestyle to go through school, it is not ok if some lawyers/lawmakers decide to cut your salaries like that. They should cut their own salaries, and they shouldnt go to medical school, if they are interested in making laws. also, if some gas station owner makes a lot of money, why should a doctor not make as much?

 

[ilovemed]

bump

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by Paws
Ok, dumb question I know but I thought I would ask: when secondaries ask about "what do you think is a real problem in healthcare today ..." and I delicately say that the HMO's are messing things up and we really need socialized medicine and a system of national health, well do you guys think this is a big no-no ?

Rather than advocating some specific policy, demonstrate that you have an in depth understanding of the issues involved by explaining why you think HMOs are so screwed up.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with expressing political beliefs as long as you express them with care and thoughtfulness.