Vote for President

Started by BLADEMDA
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor

Vote for President

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 150 52.1%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 138 47.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
pgg said:
I wouldn't make cuts to Medicare. It could use some rational change to how it's spent, particularly futile end-of-life care. People, nations, and civilizations are rightly and best judged by how they treat their weakest and most vulnerable members, and that usually comes down to the sick and old. We don't need to abandon them ... we just need to tell the not-sick and not-old to pull some more of their own weight.
Click to expand...
At least 25% of Medicare costs is futile end-of-life care in the last 6 months. I see it every day in the ICU. Politicians are about as patriotic towards the US as Putin, when they wouldn't give physicians immunity in declaring care futile, like in Europe. It is absolutely ludicrous that we pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra care so that the family can fly in and say goodbye to grandma. And that's just scratching the surface.

We should stop expensive non-palliative care for people with less than 6-12 months to live (even with treatment). The NHS in the UK has a pretty good formula when deciding which therapies they pay for. We need to stop paying many hundreds of thousands of dollars per liver transplant in ex-alcoholics, or lung transplant in ex-smokers on Medicare/Medicaid etc. Treatment for self-induced diseases (drug overdose, suicidal attempt etc.) should be out-of-pocket. There are a ton of common sense non-PC measures that would drop Medicare/Medicaid expenses by 50% overnight, with less than 5% increase in mortality.

We don't have a healthcare cost problem. We just have rampant hypotestosteronism in Congress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
We don't have a healthcare cost problem. We just have rampant hypotestosteronism in Congress.
Click to expand...
You are not serious are you???
We don't have a healthcare cost problem? We pay more money than anyone else for everything! for medications, for procedures for hospital stay... everything!
We have pharmaceutical companies that are allowed to set their own prices while medicare is forbidden by law from negotiating these prices with them, and while the FDA is protecting them from any competition!
We have health care corporations that are constantly inventing new ways to suck the blood out of the economy.
We have health insurance carriers that are not that different from the mafia.
All these cats are protected by the politicians they own!
And the result is an astronomically outrageous health care cost that is at the origin of all our other problems. As I said before the solution is not to go after the poor and the elderly and tell people they have to die earlier! The solution is to clean up congress and regulate these industries to prevent them from crippling the economy any further.
 
I don't disagree.

However, Medicare is not expensive because of what you say. Medicare wastes a lot of money on the last 6 months of life, especially on expensive treatments that should not be offered in a socialized medicine system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planktonmd said:
You forgot to mention the crusades, the inquisition, the witch-hunt and countless disasters that came as a direct result of this fine piece of literature!
But to be fair it's not really the book that caused these atrocities it is people using it to advance their own political agendas and to recruit the uneducated and simple minded masses, which is exactly what we are witnessing now.
Click to expand...

The crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions of Europe. They were a defensive reaction against Muslim aggression.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
They had to go to Jerusalem to defend against Muslim aggression in Europe?
Click to expand...
Without at all condoning the Crusades:

The background for the beginning of the Crusades (the First Crusade) was that Christians (mostly centered in Europe) and Muslims had been at war with each other for hundreds of years. Back then religion was a tremendous factor in the daily lives of most people (unlike today).

Since Muhammad's death, Islam had been expanding and pushing into neighboring lands. Muslims had conquered Arabia, the Persian Empire, North Africa which used to be Christian and still had many Christians at the time, Spain which used to be Christian as well (and hence the Spanish Reconquista and Inquisition), Sicily and southern Italy, parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Byzantine Empire which was Christian was under threat in the East, Muslims almost reached Paris at one point but were stopped at the Battle of Tours, etc.

There also were epic poems like the Song of Roland about fighting Muslims in Spain which influenced many Christians in Europe as well.

Thus, to launch the First Crusade and recapture Jerusalem was partially motivated against (whether perceived or real) Muslim aggression in Europe. It was for "Christendom" which counted Jerusalem as the holy city (although so did Jews and Muslims). That's how people back then thought and believed. Again I'm not condoning it, but that's the history, at least from what I understand.
 
bashwell said:
Without at all condoning the Crusades:

The background for the beginning of the Crusades (the First Crusade) was that Christians (mostly centered in Europe) and Muslims had been at war with each other for hundreds of years. Back then religion was a tremendous factor in the daily lives of most people (unlike today).

Since Muhammad's death, Islam had been expanding and pushing into neighboring lands. Muslims had conquered Arabia, the Persian Empire, North Africa which used to be Christian and still had many Christians at the time, Spain which used to be Christian as well (and hence the Spanish Reconquista and Inquisition), Sicily and southern Italy, parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Byzantine Empire which was Christian was under threat in the East, Muslims almost reached Paris at one point but were stopped at the Battle of Tours, etc.

There also were epic poems like the Song of Roland about fighting Muslims in Spain which influenced many Christians in Europe as well.

Thus, to launch the First Crusade and recapture Jerusalem was partially motivated against (whether perceived or real) Muslim aggression in Europe. It was for "Christendom" which counted Jerusalem as the holy city (although so did Jews and Muslims). That's how people back then thought and believed. Again I'm not condoning it, but that's the history, at least from what I understand.
Click to expand...
I can't believe you're condoning the crusades...
(Just kidding)
Fair enough
I think with regards to Plank's post, though, lots of people got murdered (Jews in particular), for not being Christian during the crusades. It's just evidence that crazies can interpret literature (ie religious texts) in whatever crazy way they choose. Fortunately for the western world we experienced the socio/politico/scientific revolutions that allow us to see the value of individuals over institutions.
As a side, though, we do have nationalism. Several people seem to think carpet bombing places that would result in mass civilian death, ignoring the plights of threatened refugees, mass deportations that split families, etc, would benefit Anericans. We should be better than that.
 
I suppose going with Snoopy is not an option? I would take a WW-I vet over the current pool, even though he is a bit dogmatic.

In all seriousness, if we didn't have the establishment lackeys, who would be better? A dream candidate, if we could.
 
Ligament said:
The crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions of Europe. They were a defensive reaction against Muslim aggression.
Click to expand...
You don't think that the Muslim invasion of Europe was a bad thing do you?
May I remind you that the book of Avicenna, a Muslim, (The Canon of medicine) was the only real text book of medicine in Europe until the end of the 18th century? and that Al-Khwarizmi (a Muslim) taught Europe Algebra?
 
Last edited:
Planktonmd said:
May I remind you that the book of Avicenna, a Muslim, (The Canon of medicine) was the only real text book of medicine in Europe until the end of the 18th century? and that Al-Khwarizmi (a Muslim) taught Europe Algebra?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?
 
Planktonmd said:
You don't think that the Muslim invasion of Europe was a bad thing do you?
May I remind you that the book of Avicenna, a Muslim, (The Canon of medicine) was the only real text book of medicine in Europe until the end of the 18th century? and that Al-Khwarizmi (a Muslim) taught Europe Algebra?
Click to expand...
It's a good question. What would the world look like if Islam had become THE European religion? Certainly a lot of bad things would have been avoided. We would have more in common with East Africa, the gulf, and parts of Asia. And Muslims proved to be far more tolerant/enlightened than Christians through a lot of the Middle Ages.

But people are people, and people always eventually let you down. Things would look different, but I'm sure we'd still be killing each other in mass numbers.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
It's a good question. What would the world look like if Islam had become THE European religion? Certainly a lot of bad things would have been avoided. We would have more in common with East Africa, the gulf, and parts of Asia. And Muslims proved to be far more tolerant/enlightened than Christians through a lot of the Middle Ages.

But people are people, and people always eventually let you down. Things would look different, but I'm sure we'd still be killing each other in mass numbers.
Click to expand...

Planktonmd said:
You don't think that the Muslim invasion of Europe was a bad thing do you?
May I remind you that the book of Avicenna, a Muslim, (The Canon of medicine) was the only real text book of medicine in Europe until the end of the 18th century? and that Al-Khwarizmi (a Muslim) taught Europe Algebra?
Click to expand...


Islam abandoned scientific rationalism.
Muslims are no less talented and brilliant than any other group. But they are nearly incapable of making world class contributions when they live in today's islamic societies.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
At least 25% of Medicare costs is futile end-of-life care in the last 6 months. I see it every day in the ICU. Politicians are about as patriotic towards the US as Putin, when they wouldn't give physicians immunity in declaring care futile, like in Europe. It is absolutely ludicrous that we pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra care so that the family can fly in and say goodbye to grandma. And that's just scratching the surface.

We should stop expensive non-palliative care for people with less than 6-12 months to live (even with treatment). The NHS in the UK has a pretty good formula when deciding which therapies they pay for. We need to stop paying many hundreds of thousands of dollars per liver transplant in ex-alcoholics, or lung transplant in ex-smokers on Medicare/Medicaid etc. Treatment for self-induced diseases (drug overdose, suicidal attempt etc.) should be out-of-pocket. There are a ton of common sense non-PC measures that would drop Medicare/Medicaid expenses by 50% overnight, with less than 5% increase in mortality.

We don't have a healthcare cost problem. We just have rampant hypotestosteronism in Congress.
Click to expand...

it's out of control. yesterday I did an 82 year old woman - robotic thoracoscopy. surgeon is learning, it took over 7 hours for a wedge resection. this was in an asymptomatic pt with a non-enlarging lung nodule! wtf are we doing here?
 
Gas you down said:
it's out of control. yesterday I did an 82 year old woman - robotic thoracoscopy. surgeon is learning, it took over 7 hours for a wedge resection. this was in an asymptomatic pt with a non-enlarging lung nodule! wtf are we doing here?
Click to expand...
At least the surgeon was developing a potentially useful skill.

We had a surgeon who decided he needed to learn how to do 1-port lap choles. 4 hours to get a gall bladder out just so he could tell the patients they'd only have one lap port incision.

Then they started coming back for incisional hernias ...
 
Random Anesthesiologist said:
Research the grandfather of the Big Bang Theory. Or what Jesuits and Franciscans offered science. Heck, even Joseph Priestley was a minister.
Click to expand...
Having a contribution to science is not the same as "embracing scientific rationalism", Actually religion and scientific rationalism are opposites!
When you embrace scientific rationalism it means you only accept things that can be explained by science and that are verifiable and reproducible, this is not possible under any religion I know of!
 
Planktonmd said:
Having a contribution to science is not the same as "embracing scientific rationalism", Actually religion and scientific rationalism are opposites!
When you embrace scientific rationalism it means you only accept things that can be explained by science and that are verifiable and reproducible, this is not possible under any religion I know of!
Click to expand...

I thought this was a great article right up the alley of this topic. Seems very rational to me.

http://thelibertariancatholic.com/raising-your-child-with-the-bible-you-may-be-raising-an-atheist/
 
Planktonmd said:
Funny that you mention that because I and one of my previous partners used to talk about that fantastic church and about becoming Pastaferians all the time!!!
We didn't work together did we???
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't me.
 
The Donald gets Palin's nod. Significant?
Personally I thought he already had the reality TV/nutcase portion of the right wing electorate locked down.
Also his speech at Liberty University was shocking. Not so bad it's funny but just sad bald-face pandering.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Trump. If they're the nominees, then at this point I'm thinking I'd likely sit out the election or write-in someone else. A protest vote or something like that.
 
PainDrain said:
I would actually vote for Sanders but he won't get the nomination. I realize a lot of people run from Sanders due to his "socialist" views but I think we need to have someone who understands that we are living in the second gilded age and if we don't strengthen the middle class we are doomed.
Click to expand...
The reason Sanders MIGHT lose is because some people hold this opinion. If you vote for him, he will win!
 
FFP said:
At least 25% of Medicare costs is futile end-of-life care in the last 6 months. I see it every day in the ICU. Politicians are about as patriotic towards the US as Putin, when they wouldn't give physicians immunity in declaring care futile, like in Europe. It is absolutely ludicrous that we pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra care so that the family can fly in and say goodbye to grandma. And that's just scratching the surface.

We should stop expensive non-palliative care for people with less than 6-12 months to live (even with treatment). The NHS in the UK has a pretty good formula when deciding which therapies they pay for. We need to stop paying many hundreds of thousands of dollars per liver transplant in ex-alcoholics, or lung transplant in ex-smokers on Medicare/Medicaid etc. Treatment for self-induced diseases (drug overdose, suicidal attempt etc.) should be out-of-pocket. There are a ton of common sense non-PC measures that would drop Medicare/Medicaid expenses by 50% overnight, with less than 5% increase in mortality.

We don't have a healthcare cost problem. We just have rampant hypotestosteronism in Congress.
Click to expand...
Basically every disease we deal with us self-induced, from STDs to CAD to cancer to joint degeneration. If we only treated those that didn't contribute to the failure of their bodies, the only remaining specialties would be pediatrics and neonatology.
 
Mad Jack said:
Basically every disease we deal with us self-induced, from STDs to CAD to cancer to joint degeneration. If we only treated those that didn't contribute to the failure of their bodies, the only remaining specialties would be pediatrics and neonatology.
Click to expand...
Not all diseases are self-induced. But even if they were, I still can't explain while an alcoholic cirrhosis deserves a half million-dollar liver transplant (especially if it means that a nurse who stuck herself with Hep C while taking care of a patient won't get it). Same goes for the lung or heart transplant in the 40 pack-year ex-smoker.

I understand it's a slippery slope. I am not arguing that these people don't deserve care. I am only saying that others shouldn't pay a lot for their stupidity.
 
FFP said:
Not all diseases are self-induced. But even if they were, I still can't explain while an alcoholic cirrhosis deserves a half million-dollar liver transplant (especially if it means that a nurse who stuck herself with Hep C while taking care of a patient won't get it). Same goes for the lung or heart transplant in the 40 pack-year ex-smoker.
Click to expand...
This is where slippery slopes legitimately could come into play though. Obese? Nothing related to obesity is covered, because you did it to yourself. Play sports? Oh, sorry, those injuries aren't covered, you chose to engage in high risk behavior. Etc, etc.
 
Mad Jack said:
This is where slippery slopes legitimately could come into play though. Obese? Nothing related to obesity is covered, because you did it to yourself. Play sports? Oh, sorry, those injuries aren't covered, you chose to engage in high risk behavior. Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with both situations (despite being overweight).

Again, I am not arguing against basic (or even advanced) or emergency care. I am arguing against the kind that involves many tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for people who didn't care in the first place. Such as society paying for long recovery and surgeries of alpinist who fell in the mountains.

Also, I am arguing for taking the societal benefit into account before pouring tens of thousands of dollars into a patient (for prolonging life by a month, for example). AFAIK, the British have a formula to calculate which treatments are too futile to be subsidized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
I agree with both situations (despite being overweight).

Again, I am not arguing against basic (or even advanced) or emergency care. I am arguing against the kind that involves many tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for people who didn't care in the first place. Such as society paying for long recovery and surgeries of alpinist who fell in the mountains.
Click to expand...
Medicine would basically cease to exist lol

http://beforeitsnews.com/health/201...en-related-to-diet-and-lifestyle-2477434.html
 
Mad Jack said:
Medicine would basically cease to exist lol

http://beforeitsnews.com/health/201...en-related-to-diet-and-lifestyle-2477434.html
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. Again, I am arguing only against very expensive stuff, not as a general rule.

There is a reason we have more ICU beds per capita than any country in the world, for example. There is a reason our heathcare costs are almost 20% of the GDP, again unheard of elsewhere. Both happen because people have no incentive to stop, AKA "do everything possible", especially if the person is poor. All paid mostly by the working middle-class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Trump is an idiot and shouldn't be President of the United States. While I despise Hillary the fact remains she is a cold, calculating, bi$#h who would be a much better President than Donald Duck Trump. (I apologize for insulting Donald Duck).

I'm not sure if I can vote for Trump or Clinton. If these two are the nominees we can expect very low voter turnout on both sides.
 
ae020744fd7e29a1604387b6db4d40d76586324c75b5c7396c3c848aa602075a_1.jpg
 
BLADEMDA said:
Trump is an idiot and shouldn't be President of the United States. While I despise Hillary the fact remains she is a cold, calculating, bi$#h who would be a much better President than Donald Duck Trump. (I apologize for insulting Donald Duck).

I'm not sure if I can vote for Trump or Clinton. If these two are the nominees we can expect very low voter turnout on both sides.
Click to expand...

I think Trump will drum up a high voter turnout.
He has his usual 35% in each state that is hardcore Trump.
Furthermore, his going after Dubya might actually pull in some moderate and liberal votes, especially those who don't trust Hillary and want someone who is not "establishment"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
42
Views
7K
kidthor
kidthor
D
Ultrasound for everything
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
9K
CopaceticOne
CopaceticOne
A
Florida crna independent bill passes state house vote by large margin 77-30 today April 3 2025
Replies
16
Views
4K
cockblockandrun
cockblockandrun
pgg
Surgeon gets blamed for anesthesia complication
Replies
38
Views
4K
cittykat
cittykat
orcawhale
  • Question Question
Anesthesia Letter of Recc for Residency Question
Replies
1
Views
570
Gern Blansten
Gern Blansten