The "I'm canceling my membership with AMSA" support thread

[medic8m]

Originally posted by stomper627
Dont you find it ironic that you support the party thats 2 largest contributors are the Trial Lawyers and Unions? Unions are a prime reason for the outsourcing of american jobs.....and I wont even bring up what trial lawyers are doing to your future career.
stomper

If you want to look at it like that... Far and away, the largest contributions to Repubs is Big Tobacco. So I guess if you are going into oncology or pulmonology you should vote Repub. As far as unions - more people with jobs/health insurance means more doctors/hospitals getting paid.

My point is that you shoudn't look at one industry's contributions and decide who to vote for. There are good and bad about both sides. You should also consider the global, economic, social, and environmental impact of both parties.

Also consider IQ (sorry I couldn't resist)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by stomper627
Dont you find it ironic that you support the party thats 2 largest contributors are the Trial Lawyers and Unions? Unions are a prime reason for the outsourcing of american jobs.....and I wont even bring up what trial lawyers are doing to your future career.
stomper

Unions are a prime reason for outsourcing? How do you figure?

No, I can't stand the lawyers that file bogus suits against doctors. But I love the ones that have sued big tobacco... Believe it or not, there are some good and decent trial lawyers out there (among the slimy and heartless). Contrast that with, say, the big tobacconeers, ALL of whom are slimy and heartless crooks who have killed millions for profit.

Say what you want, but no trial lawyer ever marketed carcinogenic, addictive chemicals to our children.

However, guys, I think it's important to look past our own noses when talking politics. It's tempting to judge politics and policy strictly in terms of how it affects our bankbooks, but I think that's misguided.

As future doctors, aren't we supposed to be concerned with helping others? The Republican Party always has been, and always will be, the party of HELPING YOURSELF to whatever you can and letting the weaklings fall by the wayside. Not precisely the philosophy we professed in our admissions interviews, eh?


--Funkless

 

[TroutBum]

As an enthusiastic AMSA (American Medical Student Association) member, I want to stand up and support the organization.

AMSA was originally the SAMA, the Student American Medical Association. In the 1960's SAMA split from their parent organization, the AMA, after realizing that the AMA was refusing to take a stance on such glaring social issues as the war in Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. AMSA was founded as the result of a group of students who felt that it was the role of a physician to be concerned with and involved in standing for the rights and care of society as a whole.

AMSA has accomplished some of the most admirable and remarkable achievements in the fight for better health care in recent history. The new ACGME guidelines that restrict resident work hours to 80 hours/week, for example, was set forth in response to legislation that AMSA helped sponsor and introduce into the federal legislature. The reduced interest rates on medical students loans is another AMSA achievement--when no lender would lend with a reduced interest rate, AMSA developed its own loan program with reduced interest rates and forced the market to respond. Medical student debt is another pressing issue that AMSA is currently addressing.

AMSA, first and foremost, is an organization for medical students. They have several stated goals, one of which is indeed Universal Health Care. Other goals, to name a few, are reducing disparities in healthcare, promoting medical-student well-being, and revitalizing professionalism. In addition to being active on the community service front, AMSA works hard to make medical school a more enjoyable, equitable, and humane experience.

I won't debate the political issues here, but I just want to say that regardless of one's political stance, AMSA has a lot to offer every medical student due to its work in defending and promoting the concerns of STUDENTS.

Please check out the website: http://www.amsa.org.

Thanks, TroutBum

Originally posted by medic8m
I've been in the medical field for years, but am new to medicine (M1). I am making impressions about certain organizations and societies. By the title of this thread I thought I would get some real information about the AMSA. Could anyone give me any facts besides "they are a bunch of commies"? I really want to learn more. Why do all the posts against the AMSA seem to mean-spirited and/or arrogant? These are the things I'm noticing. I also don't care to rely on anecdotal evidence for much. Im sure I could find people who love the care they received in a society which offers universal coverage.

 

[TroutBum]

I do think that's it's disconcerting that so many people sign up for ANY organization just for freebies and without taking the time to learn about the organization they are joining. It's not fair to say that AMSA "preys upon" unsuspecting MSIs with free Netter-it's an incentive, just like the AMA-MSS offers an incentive with the free Stedman's Medical Dictionary.

In regards to the drug rep question, the issue is about getting unbiased information. Will anybody here try to argue the fact that drug company reps will offer biased arguments in favor of their own products? By taking free lunches and freebies from drug reps, you are letting the drug companies dictate to you what information you recieve.

In addition, no matter how resistant you think you may be to such advertising, there are a number of very well done studies that show pretty conclusively that the prescribing patterns of doctors change significantly as a result of drug rep influence.

And, keep in mind that it's the PATIENT who will end up footing the bill for the drugs that we prescribe. If we get lured into prescribing more expensive drugs just as a result of drug rep influence, we end up sticking it to our patients, just for the luxury of a nicer lunch.

As a final thought, as as a previous poster mentioned, advertising and marketing DOES work! Pharm companies spend a greater percentage of revenue on advertising and marketing than on R&D of actual drugs, which too me is a terrible waste of resources.

 

[megsMS]

"As future doctors, aren't we supposed to be concerned with helping others? The Republican Party always has been, and always will be, the party of HELPING YOURSELF to whatever you can and letting the weaklings fall by the wayside." - Funkless

Funkless,

Do you really believe that there is another political party that actually practices the creed of not "helping yourself"? Democrats claim to want to help the poor. However, is giving them (poverty stricken individuals) handouts at every turn going to ever help them grow in the world? The answer is no, it is not. I am sure that most Democrats know this, and they rely on it for votes every year. As long as there are poor people out there willing to believe their alleged platforms, then they will be voted into office.

Also, what is wrong with "helping yourself" to whatever you can? There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting up and going to work in the morning, whether or not you make >$1 million a year. Yes, there are people who fall in the cracks, and yes, there are those who unfortunately work and still fall at or below the poverty line. However, that does not mean that you should work for less money yourself or give them half of your income. Most people work hard to be where they are, and I don't want anyone to take that away from anyone who deserves it.

Having said that, I believe that in order to help those unfortunate people who do happen to fall through the cracks we should give to charities and the like in order to help them. As physicans, we can work in free clinics and distribute medical supplies and medicines. We can even help out our patients when they cannot afford the proper care that they need.

Republicans are not the evil selfish monsters you make them out to be. I think that for the most part, we simply believe in old fashioned hard work, and if you happen to get paid a lot for it, then more power to you. I don't believe that anyone is selfish whether they are Republican or Democrat as long as they see the need to help others and do so. We just should not be forced to do it.

 

[stomper627]

Originally posted by funkless

As future doctors, aren't we supposed to be concerned with helping others? The Republican Party always has been, and always will be, the party of HELPING YOURSELF to whatever you can and letting the weaklings fall by the wayside. Not precisely the philosophy we professed in our admissions interviews, eh?


--Funkless

Mega....great reply.....

funkless....Id rather be a part of the "helping yourself" party....as its part of a solution....to allow people to work out their own issues.....rather than the democrats....the enablers....."just sit on your ass and let others pay for what you have".
stomper

 

[brownman24]

I know that the point of this thread was not to debate about socialized medicine, but that seems to be what it has become. So I have to throw in my opinion.

I am an MS1, and as part of our coursework we have to spend a few hours a week with a local physician in his/her office, seeing what it really means to interact with patients. The physician that I am assigned to works in a clinic in a low income neighborhood. Every single patient that has been in this year has been on medicaid. Thats fine, I have no problem with that. But while my parents tax dollars are paying for these patients to get free healthcare, most, probably in excess of half of the people who come to this clinic are wearing designer clothes. Its a pediatrician's office, and most of the babies are wearing designer clothes and expensive sneakers (which they will grow out of quickly). And these parents are bragging about how the kid is wearing the new air jordan's and the new Tracy McGrady sneakers. Both of my parents are doctors and while I am sure they could have afforded it, I wasn't allowed to get the new Air Jordan's. They had to spend their money on other things, like health insurance and my tuition. Speaking of which, a few of these kids even go to private schools. There is no reason for a family to choose to spend money on private school tuition and all these desgner clothes while the government spends everyone else's money on their office visits and over the counter drugs which are now covered under medicaid. Thats what really annoys me about the government giving away free healthcare. Its that people know its free, and they choose to do other things with their money, because they can always count on society to pay for healthcare.
The worst part about socialized medicine is that it creates a dependance on the government that many low-income people will keep for the duration of their lives and pass onto their children like a hereditary disease.
I know that what I have said by no means applies to everyone who gets the government to pay for their insurance, but it does apply to everyone who I have seen.

 

[Gauss]

Originally posted by brownman24

The worst part about socialized medicine is that it creates a dependance on the government that many low-income people will keep for the duration of their lives and pass onto their children like a hereditary disease.

Danger Danger
SPidey Sense tingling.....
I smell a republican

 

[dave262]

Whoa, this is getting too political. But since thats the end result of my OP, i'll take responsibility for it.

There is nothing in this world that makes a man sit on his a$$ like a handout. The democrats will be the death on america if they have their way.

Now i have problems with some current republicans too, but the key difference is that a republican believes in individual responsibility.

Like it or not, we make decisions in life. We decide whether or not to smoke, drink, study, work, buy the latest shoes, big screen TVs or health insurance. We are americans, and our nation was built by men and women who took responsibility for the decisions they made in life. I'll be damned if im going to let a bunch of socialist pigs ruin our country, much less my thread.

If you support the AMSA - read the freakin thread title. Your in the wrong place.

 

[banannie]

brownman24

it makes me angry and sick that you had the immense PRIVELEGE to serve poor and unwell people in a clinic, and yet you came away from the experience with such an attitude of judgment. what you've written makes me seriously think that you lack any sort of empathy. why don't you some day go back to the clinic and make an effort to understand what's going on FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. take a few minutes and talk to THEM instead of silently sitting in judgment of what you only THINK you understand about them and WHY Nike's are important and why they're on Medicaid. STOP PRETENDING you already know.

seriously, right now i'm feeling extremely irritated, and the best thing i think to do is to work hard enough to be on a medical school admissions committee so that i can keep people like you out of the medical profession.

regarding the comment that unions are the reason why companies are outsourcing. can you please explain???? WTF??? Oh wait, do you mean that unions are trying to ensure that people who WORK HARD get paid a decent enough wage to feed their families and get adequate healthcare??? And that companies, who really don't give a $hit about their workers and only care about the bottom line have decided that an easier way out is to just stop trying to treat them fairly and instead fire them and pay pennies and no benefits to someone halfway across the world??? is that what you mean?????

 

[medic8m]

well said bannanie..

To the OP: the reason "your thread" garnished such a politically charged response was that it was rather inflammatory. BTW, Have you forgotten so quickly what the "C" in TCU stands for! Hows about a little compassion, WWJD brother!!!!

 

[Neuronix]

I grew up as a low-income person in a low-income neighborhood, and we used to say the same thing as the brownman over here. Some of the other people in the community said the same. I think the reason people spend their money on material goods just comes from our society which values these sorts of things over all else. The people with more money do the same sorts of things, which is why the bankruptcy rate is so high. Though, they tend not to get as judged, because their house isn't about ready to fall over.

Anyways, I think what AMSA does is unethical. Most of the people in my class joined AMSA, and most of them have no clue what AMSA stands for. In turn, AMSA uses this membership to increase their political power and push their agenda. Of course, I never joined based on this, and several people looked at me funny for not doing so.

My two cents has run out...

 

[pxz]

Originally posted by banannie
brownman24

seriously, right now i'm feeling extremely irritated, and the best thing i think to do is to work hard enough to be on a medical school admissions committee so that i can keep people like you out of the medical profession.

Wow, you are going to reject students because they differ you in opinions?

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by banannie

regarding the comment that unions are the reason why companies are outsourcing. can you please explain???? WTF??? Oh wait, do you mean that unions are trying to ensure that people who WORK HARD get paid a decent enough wage to feed their families and get adequate healthcare??? And that companies, who really don't give a $hit about their workers and only care about the bottom line have decided that an easier way out is to just stop trying to treat them fairly and instead fire them and pay pennies and no benefits to someone halfway across the world??? is that what you mean????? [/B]

Here's a person with no experience in union labor outside the ivory towers. My father, grandfather, greatgrandfather and great-greatgrandfather were steel workers. My father got laid off from a steel mill when he was in his 30's and went back to school to get a PhD in physics and now we helps make atoms smash together.

The steel mills in the united states cant compete in the market unless they can sell their product at the same price as african, asian, and european steel conglomerates. Unions have caused wage inflation to the point that companies who keep their plants in th US cant get anyone to buy their overpriced steel.

Muscle is cheap. Unless US companies can manufacture the same goods at the same price they go bankrupt - read about bethlehem steel. Thanks to unions, my grandfather lost the medical coverage he was promised in his pension for 40 years of work. US manufactures have to be able to work smarter to keep costs down, or the company closes. Ever wonder why people protest a global economy? Thats why.

Now I know you mean well bananaboy, even though you are a dick to those who disagree, but take econ 101 and come back to this forum when you have a clue.

Oh, and I know the C stands for christian, and i am compassionate - but that doesnt mean that I tolerate sloth, gluttony, and ignorance. Some of these people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are there because they dont like to apply the principle of delayed gratification.

 

[sherman1]

Originally posted by megsMS
"As future doctors, aren't we supposed to be concerned with helping others? The Republican Party always has been, and always will be, the party of HELPING YOURSELF to whatever you can and letting the weaklings fall by the wayside." - Funkless

Funkless,

Do you really believe that there is another political party that actually practices the creed of not "helping yourself"? Democrats claim to want to help the poor. However, is giving them (poverty stricken individuals) handouts at every turn going to ever help them grow in the world? The answer is no, it is not. I am sure that most Democrats know this, and they rely on it for votes every year. As long as there are poor people out there willing to believe their alleged platforms, then they will be voted into office.

Also, what is wrong with "helping yourself" to whatever you can? There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting up and going to work in the morning, whether or not you make >$1 million a year. Yes, there are people who fall in the cracks, and yes, there are those who unfortunately work and still fall at or below the poverty line. However, that does not mean that you should work for less money yourself or give them half of your income. Most people work hard to be where they are, and I don't want anyone to take that away from anyone who deserves it.

Having said that, I believe that in order to help those unfortunate people who do happen to fall through the cracks we should give to charities and the like in order to help them. As physicans, we can work in free clinics and distribute medical supplies and medicines. We can even help out our patients when they cannot afford the proper care that they need.

Republicans are not the evil selfish monsters you make them out to be. I think that for the most part, we simply believe in old fashioned hard work, and if you happen to get paid a lot for it, then more power to you. I don't believe that anyone is selfish whether they are Republican or Democrat as long as they see the need to help others and do so. We just should not be forced to do it.

Good post .....I get really annoyed by the self righteous and morally superior attitude of some of the liberals on this thread , What is wrong with expecting people to be responsible and wanting them to take care of themselves ? Socialized medicine would be an absolute disaster for this country, many people would have no incentive to take care of their health because they will never have to pay for their medical care. I realize there may be some genuinely compassionate/idealistic (although naive) people who genuinely believe socialized medicine will work, but for the most part the liberal politicians who are proponents of socialized medicine see this as a means to increase dependence on the government and to increase their own power (ehhhmm..Hillary)

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by dave262
Thanks to unions, my grandfather lost the medical coverage he was promised in his pension for 40 years of work.

When my father was unemployed due to medical conditions, lost his insurance, and then could only get a liver transplant with insurance, who stepped in to help him? The Teamsters Union. My father and his father were both long time members as truck drivers. Had he not have been in a union, he would have died a long time ago because of his lack of coverage.

So I certainly understand your economics arguement, but please take your smug, snotty attitude and shove it somewhere. There certainly needs to be a way for people to stand for their rights, or else organized employers will screw even worse unorganized employees.

PS: banannie is a girl, not a boy, you presumptous clod.

 

[banannie]

Originally posted by dave262


Now I know you mean well bananaboy, even though you are a dick to those who disagree, but take econ 101 and come back to this forum when you have a clue.

Oh, and I know the C stands for christian, and i am compassionate - but that doesnt mean that I tolerate sloth, gluttony, and ignorance. Some of these people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are there because they dont like to apply the principle of delayed gratification.

Glory halleluiah! I have seen the light! How could I have ever doubted you, dave262? Somehow, through your disgust for poor people, you've managed to convince me that you truly are the conduit of the holy spirit.

You know, I've really just got to stop trying to develop a moral perspective that goes beyond economic theories and predictions. It's just so tedious and hard! I should just sit down, shut up, and let Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand be my guides. It would be soooo much simpler!

 

[BiggMann79]

Originally posted by banannie
Glory halleluiah! I have seen the light! How could I have ever doubted you, dave262? Somehow, through your disgust for poor people, you've managed to convince me that you truly are the conduit of the holy spirit.

You know, I've really just got to stop trying to develop a moral perspective that goes beyond economic theories and predictions. It's just so tedious and hard! I should just sit down, shut up, and let Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand be my guides. It would be soooo much simpler!

Got love it when those faced with rational thought have to resort to sarcasm.

The thing is a lot of us....Republicans ....actually believe that poverty is a complicated problem and there are no simple solutions.

You have to realize how we see a lot of the "solutions" for poverty set forth by the Democrats. We see the liberals throwing handouts at the poor as a way to keep them subjected. I see it as the polar opposite of compassion. How does this make their situation better in the long run if you don't address the underlying problems? As long as they have no incentive to change, as long as they continue to recieve their handout then the politician maintains power over the poor.

If the Liberals counter with "well you don't know what it's like, and you don't understand their culture, show some compassion" then they need to think about the implication of those statements. So are you saying that the poor NEED your help because they can not change?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. I'm just saying that people need to understand where the opposite side is coming from instead of the typical knee jerk reaction. We Republicans see the Liberal attitude to the poor being "you are too stupid to know how to take care of yourself so I'm going to take care of you", it is very patronizing and honestly very racist if the poor in question are minorities.

I believe that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish you feed him for life. The liberal viewpoint seems to be that the man is incapable of learning to fish so you should give him food for the rest of his life. I don't think he is incapable. Tell me who is being arrogant now?

I'm all for aid to those in immediate need of help. When I am a doctor I plan on giving a good portion of my income to charities and will try to do frequent medical mission trips. I also long for the time when the deep rooted problems that cause social inequality in our society are solved, but I think part of the solution is our society needs to learn to take personal responsibility.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by BiggMann79
Got love it when those faced with rational thought have to resort to sarcasm.

The thing is a lot of us....Republicans ....actually believe that poverty is a complicated problem and there are no simple solutions.

You have to realize how we see a lot of the "solutions" for poverty set forth by the Democrats. We see the liberals throwing handouts at the poor as a way to keep them subjected. I see it as the polar opposite of compassion. How does this make their situation better in the long run if you don't address the underlying problems? As long as they have no incentive to change, as long as they continue to recieve their handout then the politician maintains power over the poor.

If the Liberals counter with "well you don't know what it's like, and you don't understand their culture, show some compassion" then they need to think about the implication of those statements. So are you saying that the poor NEED your help because they can not change?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. I'm just saying that people need to understand where the opposite side is coming from instead of the typical knee jerk reaction. We Republicans see the Liberal attitude to the poor being "you are too stupid to know how to take care of yourself so I'm going to take care of you", it is very patronizing and honestly very racist if the poor in question are minorities.

I believe that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish you feed him for life. The liberal viewpoint seems to be that the man is incapable of learning to fish so you should give him food for the rest of his life. I don't think he is incapable. Tell me who is being arrogant now?

I'm all for aid to those in immediate need of help. When I am a doctor I plan on giving a good portion of my income to charities and will try to do frequent medical mission trips. I also long for the time when the deep rooted problems that cause social inequality in our society are solved, but I think part of the solution is our society needs to learn to take personal responsibility.

This is very insightful and I respect your argument. My only response would be that you might be simplifying the democratic approach to poverty. I can't defend all governmental social programs. However, not all are simply handouts to welfare recipients: head-start, school lunches (lets not punish the children of deadbeats), public education, family planning, et al.
I think democrats also tend to overstate the republican response of "tough luck!". Building prisons and hiring more police does not attack to root of crime. There are also republican social programs that were miserable failures such as the "just say no" anti-drug campaign (millions wasted).
You are right, it is a complicated problem that needs to be attacked from many angles.

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by medic8m
However, not all are simply handouts to welfare recipients: head-start, school lunches (lets not punish the children of deadbeats), public education, family planning, et al.

Just from a semantic perspective, failure to give someone money for nothing is not punishment.

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by dave262
Unions have caused wage inflation to the point that companies who keep their plants in th US cant get anyone to buy their overpriced steel. . .

. . .US manufactures have to be able to work smarter to keep costs down, or the company closes. Ever wonder why people protest a global economy? Thats why.

Oh, and I know the C stands for christian, and i am compassionate - but that doesnt mean that I tolerate sloth, gluttony, and ignorance. Some of these people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are there because they dont like to apply the principle of delayed gratification.

First off, unions don't cause wage inflation; outrageous expectations of wealth do. (By that, I mean wanting such extravagancies as nice cars and nice homes and GOD FORBID A COMPUTER.) Now that miners have televisions, it's impossible to keep them cut off from the rest of the world. So, it's gonna be a whole lot harder to get them to work w/o keeping them somewhat close to having the American dream. (The updated version of which is, I believe, a car, a house, lawn mower, health plan, two cell phones, and internet pornography on demand.)

I realize that many rich, fat white men (and the handful of executive minorities out there) still yearn for the days when miners were ignorant of the wonders of the world outside of Harlan Co, KY, or Bethlehem, PA or wherever. Sorry guys, those days are over. Bless the lord and pass the remote.

And as for slashing payroll to pad the bottom line, financial expediency does NOT justify just anything. "Aggressive accounting" and flaunting environmental standards might put extra dough in the coffers, but society doesn't condone them because we recognize them to be WRONG. So is employing Chinese preteens and laying off people like your grandfather.

And, as for that last statement about gluttony and sloth, I won't dignify it with a response beyond that, unless you can honestly say that you are a completely self-made man, having received NO support of ANY kind from ANYONE else, then you really, really, for the love of God, should just be quiet. You sound like so many fortunate sons out there, bruising their shoulderblades with all their self-congratulation. It sounds to me like you've had a few good role models, so it's not all thanks to your sterling moral fiber.

If you've never lived in a gutter, don't criticize the rats. And that goes for all of you "Compassionate Conservatives (tm)"

--Funkless

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by dave262
Just from a symantic perspective, failure to give someone money for nothing is not punishment.

So what are you saying? You obviously get the point of my comment, so what are you saying? If you dont think we should give hungary kids food just say so - be proud of it.

BTW: it isnt MONEY its FOOD (despite what you think, there is a huge difference)

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by Neuronix
When my father was unemployed due to medical conditions, lost his insurance, and then could only get a liver transplant with insurance, who stepped in to help him? The Teamsters Union. My father and his father were both long time members as truck drivers. Had he not have been in a union, he would have died a long time ago because of his lack of coverage.

So I certainly understand your economics arguement, but please take your smug, snotty attitude and shove it somewhere. There certainly needs to be a way for people to stand for their rights, or else organized employers will screw even worse unorganized employees.

PS: banannie is a girl, not a boy, you presumptous clod.

I didnt say all unions were bad or that all employers are good. I was attempting to explain why unions are causing jobs to be relocated outside the US. It's good to hear that the Teamsters helped out your father. It's bad to know that the Steelworkers union bankrupted bethlehem steel. Get over yourself.

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by medic8m
So what are you saying? You obviously get the point of my comment, so what are you saying? If you dont think we should give hungary kids food just say so - be proud of it.

BTW: it isnt MONEY its FOOD (despite what you think, there is a huge difference)

Huh? please go to www.m-w.com. its a dictionary. look up semantic.

BTW: im well aware. last time i tried to eat money it provided very few calories. However: I can go to the store right now and exchange money for food at a very stable exchange rate. Therein, money is not food, but can be exchanged for food.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by dave262
Huh? please go to www.m-w.com. its a dictionary. look up semantic.

BTW: im well aware. last time i tried to eat money it provided very few calories. However: I can go to the store right now and exchange money for food at a very stable exchange rate. Therein, money is not food, but can be exchanged for food.

Jeez!!! My point was that there is a difference between giving people money and giving them food, nothing more.

Dude, you just seem to want to argue for the arguing sake.

If there are any semantic errors in this statement please disregard them OK!!

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by funkless
First off, unions don't cause wage inflation; outrageous expectations of wealth do. (By that, I mean wanting such extravagancies as nice cars and nice homes and GOD FORBID A COMPUTER.) Now that miners have televisions, it's impossible to keep them cut off from the rest of the world. So, it's gonna be a whole lot harder to get them to work w/o keeping them somewhat close to having the American dream. (The updated version of which is, I believe, a car, a house, lawn mower, health plan, two cell phones, and internet pornography on demand.)

I realize that many rich, fat white men (and the handful of executive minorities out there) still yearn for the days when miners were ignorant of the wonders of the world outside of Harlan Co, KY, or Bethlehem, PA or wherever. Sorry guys, those days are over. Bless the lord and pass the remote.

And as for slashing payroll to pad the bottom line, financial expediency does NOT justify just anything. "Aggressive accounting" and flaunting environmental standards might put extra dough in the coffers, but society doesn't condone them because we recognize them to be WRONG. So is employing Chinese preteens and laying off people like your grandfather.

And, as for that last statement about gluttony and sloth, I won't dignify it with a response beyond that, unless you can honestly say that you are a completely self-made man, having received NO support of ANY kind from ANYONE else, then you really, really, for the love of God, should just be quiet. You sound like so many fortunate sons out there, bruising their shoulderblades with all their self-congratulation. It sounds to me like you've had a few good role models, so it's not all thanks to your sterling moral fiber.

If you've never lived in a gutter, don't criticize the rats. And that goes for all of you "Compassionate Conservatives (tm)"

--Funkless

Funk, i was replying to an earlier post about my attendance at a christian college. But, since you want to know about me, I joined the army out of highschool. Paid for my own tuition, rent, food, car, clothes, insur in college. Same deal in med school. I've been evicted for late rent, put food on a credit card, but I made it work. And no, my moral fiber revolves around the fact that I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and barring psychiatric illness (which is the one of the few federal entitlment programs my tax dollars should be paying for but arnt) I encourage others to do the same.

FYI: I teach MCATs and SATs to college and high school kids, the one time I and every other teacher had zero attendance and zero effort put into our classes was when the taxpayers offered free SAT classes to inner city youths. This is one example of a million similar scenarios. I dont believe in handouts unless you are trying to make someone dependent on you. (read: politicians)

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by BiggMann79
How does this make their situation better in the long run if you don't address the underlying problems? As long as they have no incentive to change, as long as they continue to recieve their handout then the politician maintains power over the poor. . .

. . . So are you saying that the poor NEED your help because they can not change?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. I'm just saying that people need to understand where the opposite side is coming from instead of the typical knee jerk reaction. We Republicans see the Liberal attitude to the poor being "you are too stupid to know how to take care of yourself so I'm going to take care of you", it is very patronizing and honestly very racist if the poor in question are minorities.

I'm all for aid to those in immediate need of help. When I am a doctor I plan on giving a good portion of my income to charities and will try to do frequent medical mission trips. I also long for the time when the deep rooted problems that cause social inequality in our society are solved, but I think part of the solution is our society needs to learn to take personal responsibility.

Well...

Look, if "incentive to change" is all it takes to go from poorhouse to penthouse, then we'd be living in Horatio Alger's wetdream. For someone who claims to have a firmer handle on the complexities of the matter, you seem pretty naive about it.

If someone is truly incapable of providing their own staples, then how can you possibly assert that if they "want to change" they will no longer need help, and furthermore, that if they receive help, then they will no longer want to change. (As if it even MATTERED whether or not they want to change.)

Welfare does not exist for the capable-but-lazy. It exists because there ARE people who just don't have what it takes to exist in a complex society. There are people who simply can't hold a job for any number of valid reasons. And you can't exactly start a farm in Bedford-Stuy.

When the day comes that every child is born into a family with at least ONE good, consistent role model, a good school at their disposal, a relatively crime-free neighborhood, and, um, God decides that everyone gets to start off w/o significant mental, emotional, or physical defects, then I'll raise the standard for dissolution of Medicaid and Welfare.

Face it, Republicans only consider about three types of people:
1) the unborn
2) WAGE EARNERS (who don't get uppity)
3) themselves, natch

Once you're alive, if you stop making them money, then you are beneath their contempt, and you are beneath their mercy.

--Funkless

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by dave262
Funk, i was replying to an earlier post about my attendance at a christian college. But, since you want to know about me, I joined the army out of highschool. Paid for my own tuition, rent, food, car, clothes, insur in college. Same deal in med school. I've been evicted for late rent, put food on a credit card, but I made it work. And no, my moral fiber revolves around the fact that I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and barring psychiatric illness (which is the one of the few federal entitlment programs my tax dollars should be paying for but arnt) I encourage others to do the same.

FYI: I teach MCATs and SATs to college and high school kids, the one time I and every other teacher had zero attendance and zero effort put into our classes was when the taxpayers offered free SAT classes to inner city youths. This is one example of a million similar scenarios. I dont believe in handouts unless you are trying to make someone dependent on you. (read: politicians)

I think that's great. I'm not being sarcastic. I really do respect what you do.

We come from similar backgrounds. So I'm sure that you will agree that, despite having to pull ourselves up from our bootstraps, we also got by on our work ethics and educations. We adopted the values and goals of the people around us, and learned HOW to achieve goals.

Life can suck; we all know that. But tenacity is only part of getting through, and I think that we all forget that sometime.

Now, I really wish that everyone had somebody worth looking up to. But, not everyone does. When I think of what it must be like to be a child without a single decent role model, it makes me wonder how things could possibly go right for them!

The *****s and sluggards and drunks and criminals you see around you are typically either born that way or raised to be that way. The exceptions, the capable-but-lazy, are the ones who contaminate the welfare system, but there isn't a really good way of weeding them out.

Keep up the good fight. Sorry if I get blustery when I talk politics.

--Funkless

P.S. Re: zero attendance at the inner-city SAT class, this may be reflective of the state of their educational preparation and/or their lack of academic/professional goals. These are heritable problems, unfortunately, which are always the hardest to fix.

 

[BiggMann79]

Originally posted by funkless
Well...

Look, if "incentive to change" is all it takes to go from poorhouse to penthouse, then we'd be living in Horatio Alger's wetdream. For someone who claims to have a firmer handle on the complexities of the matter, you seem pretty naive about it.

I never claimed to have a firm handle on the complexities of the matter. I'm certainly no economist. I do have personal experiences with poverty (my family was quite poor for a period) that I bring to the table. I don't have all the answers but I am smart enough to know that it is a complex problem.

If someone is truly incapable of providing their own staples, then how can you possibly assert that if they "want to change" they will no longer need help, and furthermore, that if they receive help, then they will no longer want to change. (As if it even MATTERED whether or not they want to change.)

You are proving my point that Liberals think poor people are incapable of changing. Thanks!

Welfare does not exist for the capable-but-lazy. It exists because there ARE people who just don't have what it takes to exist in a complex society. There are people who simply can't hold a job for any number of valid reasons. And you can't exactly start a farm in Bedford-Stuy.

Would you mind listing what you believe are valid reasons? I'm curious.

When the day comes that every child is born into a family with at least ONE good, consistent role model, a good school at their disposal, a relatively crime-free neighborhood, and, um, God decides that everyone gets to start off w/o significant mental, emotional, or physical defects, then I'll raise the standard for dissolution of Medicaid and Welfare.

I'm going to agree with you that ones background is going to affect the person, but I don't think it has to limit you. Sure it's going to be more difficult for a person from a less affluent background to say, get into medical school, than a person from a more affluent background, but it's not impossible, even without affirmative action (which if it exists at all should be concerned with class and not race). There are too many examples of people who have overcome their background and done great things with their life. It really all comes down to taking personal responsibility.

I don't think there is anyone who is against helping people who absolutely can't help themselves, maybe our definitions of who constitutes this group just differs.

Face it, Republicans only consider about three types of people:
1) the unborn
2) WAGE EARNERS (who don't get uppity)
3) themselves, natch

Once you're alive, if you stop making them money, then you are beneath their contempt, and you are beneath their mercy.

--Funkless

Those are awfully sweeping generalizations that certainly don't apply to everyone that votes Republican. In all fairness though I've been guilty of painting all Democrats with a broad stroke so I probably don't have room to talk.

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by BiggMann79
You are proving my point that Liberals think poor people are incapable of changing. Thanks!

Would you mind listing what you believe are valid reasons? I'm curious.

I'm going to agree with you that ones background is going to affect the person, but I don't think it has to limit you

I don't think there is anyone who is against helping people who absolutely can't help themselves, maybe our definitions of who constitutes this group just differs.


Those are awfully sweeping generalizations that certainly don't apply to everyone that votes Republican. In all fairness though I've been guilty of painting all Democrats with a broad stroke so I probably don't have room to talk.

I think you misread what I said.

There are SOME people who are incapable of bettering their circumstances.

Valid reasons: mental ******ation, base stupidity, abject lack of resources, abject lack of instilled values (they don't fall from trees).

Don't get me wrong. There are rich people with fatal physical, emotional, and mental flaws. The difference is that, for these people, the basic needs are provided for. Ahem, they're rich.

As for your last point, touche. I stand rebuked. Apologies to all you sensitive neocons out there.

--Funkless

 

[Tazmaniac]

There's only one thing to learn from this thread. All generalizations are always bad.

-Todd

 

[banannie]

in response to bigman:

my sarcasm was the result of realizing this thread had past the point of ridiculousness, somewhere around the word "gluttony" I think

to be honest, and you'll notice this if you actually pay attention to my posts, the "conservative viewpoint," whatever that means, is not what I, and most progressive people have a beef with. it's the accusatory attitude of some people who ally themselves with the republican party that really gets my blood boiling. when people refuse to address the problem, and refuse to do anything but sit back and "let them suffer for their mistakes", i really can't tolerate it. it's really a shame that the republican party is sliding into this cesspool of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity inspired malignancy.

most progressives, contrary to your impressions, do understand the importance of enabling people to help themselves. and really, i love the giving fish vs. teaching to fish analogy. it's a beautiful one. unfortunately, it's not one that applies to the policy proposals of democrats vs. republicans. to the contrary, i think it's actually democrats who want to give out free fishing lessons. republicans want to just plop everyone down by the river, regardless of whether it's a good or bad spot, and force them to figure it out on their own. pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as you all like to say it.

one important thing that universal health care can do for people is to ensure them access to EDUCATION about preventive health measures. as it stands, where are people supposed to be learning these lessons that tell them how not to be "gluttons" and negligent with their health? from public schools? from TV???

really, if you all are so opposed to universal health care AT THE VERY LEAST you should be fighting for better health education in schools, regulation of the food industry and its advertising to children, etc. if you're not going to at least give people proper fishing lessons, there really is no way you can expect them to always be able to help themselves. the guy who doesn't know how to use his fishing pole and insteads rushes into the river, fruitlessly trying to catch fish between his hands, is not bad, lazy, or undeserving! it is not condescending to say that ALL people need some minimum of guidance and support to function in our society.

oh, and DAVE262, your dad is a nuclear physicist, and yet you had to "pull yourself up by your boot straps"! Oh, my! Yes, please, tell me another one!

 

[Shinken]

Originally posted by sherman1
Socialized medicine would be an absolute disaster for this country, many people would have no incentive to take care of their health because they will never have to pay for their medical care. I realize there may be some genuinely compassionate/idealistic (although naive) people who genuinely believe socialized medicine will work, but for the most part the liberal politicians who are proponents of socialized medicine see this as a means to increase dependence on the government and to increase their own power (ehhhmm..Hillary)

Of course. I gather from this post that:

1) People that don't agree with sherman1 are naive.

2) People in countries that have universal health care systems don't take care of their health because health care is freely available. Which means that EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (except the US) has citizens that don't take care of their healths. Which implies that since health care in the US is so hard to get people really take care of their health, right?

Last time I checked, people in countries that have universal health systems are less obese and don't have the rates of heart disease and type II diabetes that the US has. Perhaps countries that have universal health systems have them because their citizens are smarter and have a higher level of thinking? (Oh, wait! they must be naive, right?). It's completely embarrasing that the US spends so much more than everyone else in health care and has PATHETIC health indices compared to other developed countries (even compared to some undeveloped countries like Cuba!).

Sorry, but the concept that people won't have any incentive to take care of their health if health care was universal is ludicrous. But I guess since I don't agree with the poster then I'm naive (tell that to the millions of people in other developed countries that are healthy thanks to available health care...or tell that to the millions of hard-working people in the US that are uninsured or underinsured and cannot get the care they need...They can all go to the ER, right? Or maybe they're not working hard enough?).

 

[stomper627]

Other western countries have a different attitude than the litigation happy US. In other countries, people do not sue based on the fact that if they lose....THEY PAY. With this attitude shift, they do not feel that everything is owed to them.....this is seen in seeing patients....I see it everyday....."make me better" vs. "help me get better" Make vs. Help.....US vs. rest of the world.
In the US if we are fat and lazy, it is someone elses fault. In most other western nations, people take a different approach knowing full well that its their own fault.
We can thank our lawyers for this attitude.....remember as a lawyer commercial tells me everday on tv (usually during the lunch hour while watchinig judge judy...hmmm.....target audience?) ....that "We protect your most important right.....THE RIGHT TO MONEY".
stomper

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by dave262
I didnt say all unions were bad or that all employers are good. I was attempting to explain why unions are causing jobs to be relocated outside the US. It's good to hear that the Teamsters helped out your father. It's bad to know that the Steelworkers union bankrupted bethlehem steel. Get over yourself.

The tech industry is also in the process of sending all of its jobs overseas. I know plenty of college educated computer science people who cannot find jobs, unless they're willing to relocate to India. This has nothing to do with unions, as workers in high tech industries (outside of manufacturing) have almost never unionized. My point? We enjoy a higher standard of living here than in most countries in the world. As such, we get paid more-- union or no union. This basic economics are the same, our goods are going to be more expensive. So, had it not have been for unions would the USA have lost its steel industry? I'd argue that it is very likely.

I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post, and for that much I apologize.

 

[dave262]

Originally posted by banannie
in response to bigman:

oh, and DAVE262, your dad is a nuclear physicist, and yet you had to "pull yourself up by your boot straps"! Oh, my! Yes, please, tell me another one!

They divorced when i was 4 dick. Mom is a theater teacher. Go f*ck yourself.

 

[LukeWhite]

Originally posted by Shinken
Last time I checked, people in countries that have universal health systems are less obese and don't have the rates of heart disease and type II diabetes that the US has. Perhaps countries that have universal health systems have them because their citizens are smarter and have a higher level of thinking? (Oh, wait! they must be naive, right?). It's completely embarrasing that the US spends so much more than everyone else in health care and has PATHETIC health indices compared to other developed countries (even compared to some undeveloped countries like Cuba!).

In addition to Cuba, I've heard that Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and sub-Sarahan Africa also have remarkably low rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. I don't know how they're accomplishing it, but whatever they're doing, we should try it out!

 

[banannie]

Originally posted by dave262
They divorced when i was 4 dick. Mom is a theater teacher. Go f*ck yourself.

look, if you're so sensitive about your family, then you really should consider not posting details about your personal life on a message board. you leave inconsistent details up for scrutiny. and that maybe sometimes leads people to make assumptions about your background and how you got there . . . kind of like what you do when you generate uninformed conclusions about why some people are impoverished and sick.

anyway, i apologize for directing a comment toward your family. i only meant to make fun of some of your opinions, not your personal life.

 

[funkless]

Originally posted by stomper627
Other western countries have a different attitude than the litigation happy US. In other countries, people do not sue based on the fact that if they lose....THEY PAY. With this attitude shift, they do not feel that everything is owed to them.....this is seen in seeing patients....I see it everyday....."make me better" vs. "help me get better" Make vs. Help.....US vs. rest of the world.
In the US if we are fat and lazy, it is someone elses fault. In most other western nations, people take a different approach knowing full well that its their own fault.
We can thank our lawyers for this attitude.....remember as a lawyer commercial tells me everday on tv (usually during the lunch hour while watchinig judge judy...hmmm.....target audience?) ....that "We protect your most important right.....THE RIGHT TO MONEY".
stomper

Well, I agree that notions of entitlement (courtesy of BMW ads, MTV Cribs, the lottery, and all those cosmetics and yogurt ads saying "I'm worth it!" and "indulge") have focused EVERYONE'S attention on achieving a higher level of creature comfort. The honor's in the dollar, kid, as the saying goes. It's getting harder and harder to find people who feel that hard work is an end in itself. But since this attitude pervades across all class lines, it seems that everyone's chasing the same carrot. The only difference is that those at the bottom rungs don't have the same tools as those at the top.

For millions of people, black and white, an executive career just isn't going to happen. The infrastructure just isn't there. No real educational prospects, no social supports. B.I.G. said "either you're slinging crack rock or you got a killer jump shot." (In rural America, it's rap-metal band and methamphetamine.) Failing that, you can get a lawyer, try for American Idol, or just keep playing the lottery.

So, what situation are we looking at, here? It seems that we're all chasing after what Madison Ave tells us to. Some of us do it the right way (go to school, get a job, invest). Others don't have that option and languish in their dissatisfaction.

Does poor people's failure to get rich mean they don't deserve the same access to health care as anyone else? I don't see where your argument has legs.

--Funkless

 

[Red58]

I'm personally not a member of AMSA, but a member and very active participant in the AMA-MSS at the national level. I personally think the AMSA misses the boat on the whole Tort Reform issue, but they are right on with the drug rep issue. I feel some doctors are influenced by freebies and some aren't. I worked with a IM doc who would only prescribe certain Statins because he got money to speak from those compaines. As a physician we are going to be patient advocates and as such, I cannot and will not take anything from an industry who's buisness practices do everything possible to take advantage of my future patients. A great book about the subject is The Big Fix by Katherine Greider in which she takes information from very credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal, ABC News, etc and examines pharmaceutical compainies' buisness practices and their impact on the patient.