Will My Political Views Hurt Me?

[Falconclaw]

I am the Managing Editor of a conservative/libertarian monthly magazine at my school. I'm going to be the Editor in Chief next year. It's the best example I have of leadership experience, and whenever I'm asked for generic examples in interviews (e.g. describe a time you had to work in a team to overcome a challenge, etc.) I always turn to my magazine.

I definitely want to put it on my application, but it's pretty easy to find the articles I wrote if you spend five minutes doing an online search. Most of my articles are not health related, although I did write one against Obamacare, and in favor of a more free market health care system. Will any of this hurt me if the adcoms happen to be liberal Democrats?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[earf]

Doctor's are pretty smart people and like to hear your involvement in politics and to having an actual, substantiated opinion about this. If anything, it should help your application since you can discuss and debate about really important issues and provide a strong argument backed by evidence. Admissions committee knows that they have 6,000 applicant's. Just because one has a different opinion doesn't mean it'll affect you negatively.

Now what WILL hurt your chances is if you aren't open minded, willing to consider the other opinions, and unable to listen and respond properly when they ask you or challenge you on a certain issue.

EDIT: You can put it on your application, but just explain how this has helped you develop skills that you believe will help you be a great physician (empathy, civic engagement, questioning the status quo, critical thinking, inquisitiveness, investigation, ability to listen with an open mind, strong verbal skills, and a million other ways you can spin it), but maybe leave out your political affiliation.

 

[darkjedi]

Leave out the political affiliation of your paper, it can only hurt you. You can talk about it without talking about what party you support. The chances of your interviewer disagreeing with your political beliefs and holding it against you are rather high and not worth risking.

 

[pathologyDO]

Given that it takes all kinds to make a medical school, and admission committees are mature individuals, I don't think that mentioning your leadership experience will be something that prevents you from getting into a school. Yet at the same time, best to err on the side of caution on something so important to your future. You should avoid elaborating on your political views if possible. Just try not to stir the pot.

 

[music2doc]

Leave out the political affiliation of your paper, it can only hurt you. You can talk about it without talking about what party you support. The chances of your interviewer disagreeing with your political beliefs and holding it against you are rather high and not worth risking.

This. Academic physicians tend to be of the more liberal kind and are often quite ignorant of the issues facing community physicians. (There, I said it.) The fact of the matter is that your conservative approach is not likely to be appreciated in the academic setting; however, your experience is a unique contribution and could make you a great candidate for medical school. My advice is to talk about it but leave out the political affiliation. Certainly, you can talk about any political work you have done but frame it such a way as to avoid the political affiliation and in a way that shows evidence of alignment with the school's mission statement and the interviewer's apparent attitudes, beliefs, and background.

 

[FutureDocsWife]

This. Academic physicians tend to be of the more liberal kind and are often quite ignorant of the issues facing community physicians. (There, I said it.) The fact of the matter is that your conservative approach is not likely to be appreciated in the academic setting; however, your experience is a unique contribution and could make you a great candidate for medical school. My advice is to talk about it but leave out the political affiliation. Certainly, you can talk about any political work you have done but frame it such a way as to avoid the political affiliation and in a way that shows evidence of alignment with the school's mission statement and the interviewer's apparent attitudes, beliefs, and background.

+1

You can definitely talk about this experience without discussing the political affiliation. Is it tied to your school? You can say "my school's paper/magazine." Otherwise, if it doesn't have too political-leaning of a title, you can also use the title, because most likely they aren't going to know what it is & won't take the time to google it either. You can also read your interviewer and you might find that your politics align, in which case it might be just worth mentioning that it's a political paper (but that of course is a risk). The main point is not to come off as too extreme in an interview or personal statement.

You should be prepared though - political questions WILL come up in interviews, so you must know how to answer them in a way that shows you have an opinion & more importantly, know what you are talking about, but also that you are open-minded and can engage in a friendly debate.

 

[Benedictus123]

I opened this thread thinking the OP was going to be a white power nationalist or something. I'd say it's no big deal and you can mention it if it was a big part of your life in college. Of course people get so riled up about political things these days that there very much is a risk you could offend someone who decides to google around, but I doubt the negatives here outweigh the positives. I'd say as long as you're not a jerk about anything (like, do your articles belittle and demean people?) you'll probably be alright.

Will any of this hurt me if the adcoms happen to be liberal Democrats?

They probably won't care very much, as you'll just be one of many self-aggrandizing undergrads they have to interview that day, and they're more interested in what sort of doctor you might be than any ode of love to Ayn Rand you might have typed out once in college. People, like real human beings, aren't just 'liberal democrats' or 'managing editors of college conservative magazines.' They are all sorts of things and have all sorts of biases, and it's not nearly as simple as 'X will do Y if they find out about Z.'

I do admissions interviews for my Ivy League alma mater. We're told to NEVER demean or defame anyone for their political or religious views, and while I've definitely had interviewees who've had very different politics from mine, I've never let that influence what I write about them. I only evaluate them in terms of their strengths and weaknesses with respect to if I think they will make good students at my old school. Now medical school admissions are way more intense and subject-specific, but I doubt they're SO different that the doctors and professors involved would go out of their way to google some random college magazine they read on a kid's application.

I'll never forget a guy at my school who was ridiculously conservative, ran a magazine, was a member of some abstinence society, etc. Never met him, but he was always in the school paper getting angry about premarital sex and condoms. Anyways, he was also really smart and became a Rhode Scholar. Now, if people on SDN think getting into medical school is hard, you have no idea when it comes to the application process for THAT. He credited his success in the process to being so contrarian to the typical views that the Rhodes interviewers have, and being able to articulate them well. So if that guy could do it, you can too.

Now if you wrote an article like "Why Interracial Marriage is Evil" or "Slavery Had Its Good Points," then I think you might be in trouble.

 

[LizzyM]

You might be surprised that the political leanings of the adcom members are all over the map and that we do try mightly to be fair to applicants who are strong but have political leanings opposite our own as long as they are respectful toward others.

IMHO being bland is a greater sin than being someone who is thoughtful and open about taking a stand.

 

[911 Turbo]

IMHO being bland is a greater sin than being someone who is thoughtful and open about taking a stand.

Lol wait wut? Was not expecting this. Interesting..

 

[alpinism]

Lol wait wut? Was not expecting this. Interesting..

Yes, we need more extreme activist doctors...

Stupid moderates with their reasonable arguments and willingness to compromise

yawn boring.

 

[notbobtrustme]

IMHO being bland is a greater sin than being someone who is thoughtful and open about taking a stand.

Even if that stand involves denying access to care for millions of people?

 

[FSU2013]

Even if that stand involves denying access to care for millions of people?

Lol. It's nice to see how the other side thinks. Don't forget, Paul Ryan likes pushing old grannies off cliff when he's not doing P90x.

 

[plumazul]

IMHO being bland is a greater sin than being someone who is thoughtful and open about taking a stand.

I think some of you missed this. I totally agree. If the OP is a thoughtful conservative (a la William F Buckley) then there should not be a problem. However, if your political views are based on myths, conspiracy theories, logical fallacies, and "things you saw on Fox News or CNN", then there could be a problem.

OP, btw, the "free market" is entirely based on the ability of participants to walk away from any given transaction. Who among us is willing to walk away from your own life as a bargaining chip?

 

[LizzyM]

Even if that stand involves denying access to care for millions of people?

And the physicians who refuse to see patients on Medicare and/or Medicaid? Are they not denying access to care to millions? Are there not liberals among them?

 

[plumazul]

And the physicians who refuse to see patients on Medicare and/or Medicaid? Are they not denying access to care to millions? Are there not liberals among them?

I think you are conflating two distinct issues. The fact that some doctors won't see Medicare/Medicaid patients is not denying care to anyone as long as there is still a viable alternative provider choice. However, to deny insurance coverage to a large segment of the entire population actually does deny access to health care. Emergency rooms are not a viable alternative.

And btw, if a doctor will not see Medicaid/Medicare patients, then by definition they are not a liberal. I had the chance to meet "Dr. Dan". If you want an example of a liberal physician he would be it.

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

 

[LizzyM]

I think you are conflating two distinct issues. The fact that some doctors won't see Medicare/Medicaid patients is not denying care to anyone as long as there is still a viable alternative provider choice. However, to deny insurance coverage to a large segment of the entire population actually does deny access to health care. Emergency rooms are not a viable alternative.

And btw, if a doctor will not see Medicaid/Medicare patients, then by definition they are not a liberal. I had the chance to meet "Dr. Dan". If you want an example of a liberal physician he would be it.

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

Since when do physicians deny insurance coverage to anyone? Insurance companies -- up until now -- have decided to whom they will provide coverage. Government administrators and elected officials decide to whom tax-funded medical care will be provided.

And what do you make of the Oregon experiment recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine?

 

[jr93]

Depending on how aggressive your paper was, it might matter but like some have said, adcoms don't have time to look into what you wrote. If you have large amounts of bias though, it will come through in your interview anyway. What would look bad is to have a strong opinion and not be able to back it. If you slam "Obamacare" (I'd start by calling it the AFA if you want to appear unbiased) and then are asked to elaborate and cannot, you're going to look like a Fox News mouthpiece. If you speak intelligently about your position and can carry a debate, even a liberal democrat with intelligence will respect you even in disagreement. We're in a pretty educated field.

 

[touchpause13]

I think ur fine. I come from the opposite side of the aisle (hello!) And was involved in pro choice and feminist groups on campus, and even won an essay contest that was directly criticizing republicans. As long as u can speak intelligentally about ur beliefs w/ just pulling from talking points ur fine

 

[plumazul]

Since when do physicians deny insurance coverage to anyone? Insurance companies -- up until now -- have decided to whom they will provide coverage. Government administrators and elected officials decide to whom tax-funded medical care will be provided.

The person you originally answered was clearly speaking to national health policy. (as was I)

And what do you make of the Oregon experiment recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine?

I'll get back to you on that after finals.

 

[FSU2013]

I think you are conflating two distinct issues. The fact that some doctors won't see Medicare/Medicaid patients is not denying care to anyone as long as there is still a viable alternative provider choice. However, to deny insurance coverage to a large segment of the entire population actually does deny access to health care. Emergency rooms are not a viable alternative.

And btw, if a doctor will not see Medicaid/Medicare patients, then by definition they are not a liberal. I had the chance to meet "Dr. Dan". If you want an example of a liberal physician he would be it.

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

lol. Interesting way to define liberal.

Liberals don't care what you do with someone else's money; when it comes to your own personal money, then it's all about personal property. There are plenty of rich lib doctors that think the gov't should provide everything for everyone, just so long as it doesn't cut their own salary.

 

[touchpause13]

lol. Interesting way to define liberal.

Liberals don't care what you do with someone else's money; when it comes to your own personal money, then it's all about personal property. There are plenty of rich lib doctors that think the gov't should provide everything for everyone, just so long as it doesn't cut their own salary.

Dear I don't think most liberals are in it for free stuff, just like most conservatives aren't in it to oppress women and minorities. Those are both just neg stereotypes

 

[plumazul]

lol. Interesting way to define liberal.

Liberals don't care what you do with someone else's money; when it comes to your own personal money, then it's all about personal property. There are plenty of rich lib doctors that think the gov't should provide everything for everyone, just so long as it doesn't cut their own salary.

Yea, that would be a textbook definition. Not really so interesting. Programs such as SS and Medicare defined the liberal/progressive movement of the 20th century. You should read some of FDR's speeches if you are interested. As for the rest of your opinion, I supposed we are all entitled to them(opinions).

 

[jr93]

lol. Interesting way to define liberal.

Liberals don't care what you do with someone else's money; when it comes to your own personal money, then it's all about personal property. There are plenty of rich lib doctors that think the gov't should provide everything for everyone, just so long as it doesn't cut their own salary.

I don't think liberals necessarilly think that the gov't should provide for everyone, it's more that opportunities should be available for all regardless of your upbringing rather than middle class and wealthier people having all the opportunities. BTW, this is an independent talking. Also, I know of doctors on both sides of the aisle that would prefer to not have their salary cut but if you know them well enough for them to speak candidly will admit that they are paid more than they likely deserve or more than it should be when compared to other physicians. Even outside of physicians, I've met numerous people who are very well off and feel guilty or regret their wealth once they reach a certain age. Often times it's because of their relationship with their children I'd imagine but it's an interesting phenomenon. These things change political opinions in a hurry.

 

[FSU2013]

I don't think liberals necessarilly think that the gov't should provide for everyone, it's more that opportunities should be available for all regardless of your upbringing rather than middle class and wealthier people having all the opportunities. BTW, this is an independent talking. Also, I know of doctors on both sides of the aisle that would prefer to not have their salary cut but if you know them well enough for them to speak candidly will admit that they are paid more than they likely deserve or more than it should be when compared to other physicians. Even outside of physicians, I've met numerous people who are very well off and feel guilty or regret their wealth once they reach a certain age. Often times it's because of their relationship with their children I'd imagine but it's an interesting phenomenon. These things change political opinions in a hurry.

I've only ever seen it go the other way; i.e. someone who is a lib young, then pays 10s of 1000s in taxes quarterly and that changes their tune.

You know what they say, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

 

[touchpause13]

I've only ever seen it go the other way; i.e. someone who is a lib young, then pays 10s of 1000s in taxes quarterly and that changes their tune.

You know what they say, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

Damn is that necessary? For the record my parents (who are in their 60s and sit pretty high on the upper middle class range) have always voted dem or independent

 

[plumazul]

I've only ever seen it go the other way; i.e. someone who is a lib young, then pays 10s of 1000s in taxes quarterly and that changes their tune.

You know what they say, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

Or perhaps you are suffering from severe "heart" disease.

 

[plumazul]

Damn is that necessary? For the record my parents (who are in their 60s and sit pretty high on the upper middle class range) have always voted dem or independent

Your parents are the norm, not the exception. Some of the wealthiest counties in the country (in NOVA, Montgomery county in MD, California, and in New England, are also some of the most Democratic in the nation. This is a simple fact, not just an opinion.

 

[Falconclaw]

I think some of you missed this. I totally agree. If the OP is a thoughtful conservative (a la William F Buckley) then there should not be a problem. However, if your political views are based on myths, conspiracy theories, logical fallacies, and "things you saw on Fox News or CNN", then there could be a problem.

OP, btw, the "free market" is entirely based on the ability of participants to walk away from any given transaction. Who among us is willing to walk away from your own life as a bargaining chip?

I kind of thought that this thread might turn into a political debate, which I'm normally willing to have on the internet, but right now I'm studying for finals, so I'll give you a short answer.

Medical care is not always a life and death situation, although of course it sometimes is. Everyone knows that many tests and procedures that are ordered are unnecessary. My goal would be a system in which patients have more of an incentive to take cost and quality into account when purchasing health care. Just like people would buy a lot of food they didn't need if they just had food insurance that covered everything with a low deductible, people end up not having enough incentive to shop for the best product.

Government policies distort the health care market in a lot of ways. I know I'm not being specific, but if someone is really interested in free market ideas to make health care work better, they can just read some of the articles here: http://www.cato.org/search/results/health care

I am a big William F Buckley fan, although Milton Friedman is definitely my favorite intellectual figure.

 

[sinombre]

Your parents are the norm, not the exception. Some of the wealthiest counties in the country (in NOVA, Montgomery county in MD, California, and in New England, are also some of the most Democratic in the nation. This is a simple fact, not just an opinion.

Well sort of... the wealthy parts of California tend to be much more conservative (think most of Orange County, San Diego, Santa Barbara, nice parts of Ventura County, etc.).

 

[plumazul]

Medical care is not always a life and death situation, although of course it sometimes is. Everyone knows that many tests and procedures that are ordered are unnecessary. My goal would be a system in which patients have more of an incentive to take cost and quality into account when purchasing health care. Just like people would buy a lot of food they didn't need if they just had food insurance that covered everything with a low deductible, people end up not having enough incentive to shop for the best product.

Government policies distort the health care market in a lot of ways. I know I'm not being specific, but if someone is really interested in free market ideas to make health care work better, they can just read some of the articles here: http://www.cato.org/search/results/health care

Corporate policies distort health care decisions in a lot of ways. In health care, we don't need government nor corporate entities making decisions. That's what we will be trained to do. The solution is very simple, let doctors practice medicine, not politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_practice

 

[alpinism]

Overall:

Districts with wealthier and older populations tend to vote more conservative (ie rural areas and wealthy suburbs).

Districts with younger and poorer populations as well as more immigrants tend to vote more liberal (ie inner cities and working class suburbs).

 

[FSU2013]

Damn is that necessary? For the record my parents (who are in their 60s and sit pretty high on the upper middle class range) have always voted dem or independent

It's a joke, man. Honestly, surprised you haven't heard it before. I thought that was a common saying.

Or perhaps you are suffering from severe "heart" disease.

I see what you did there, lol.

 

[touchpause13]

Overall:

Districts with wealthier and older populations tend to vote more conservative (ie rural areas and wealthy suburbs).

Districts with younger and poorer populations as well as more immigrants tend to vote more liberal (ie inner cities and working class suburbs).

What about the south?

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

I've only ever seen it go the other way; i.e. someone who is a lib young, then pays 10s of 1000s in taxes quarterly and that changes their tune.

You know what they say, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

Or you just didn't let yourself get greedy once you are the one paying all of the taxes to fund the programs that you believed in so much as a youth. It is unfortunate that so many people lose conviction in their beliefs as soon as they have to give something up for them.

 

[touchpause13]

Or you just didn't let yourself get greedy once you are the one paying all of the taxes to fund the programs that you believed in so much as a youth. It is unfortunate that so many people lose conviction in their beliefs as soon as they have to give something up for them.

Bingo.

 

[FSU2013]

Or you just didn't let yourself get greedy once you are the one paying all of the taxes to fund the programs that you believed in so much as a youth. It is unfortunate that so many people lose conviction in their beliefs as soon as they have to give something up for them.

There is a huge difference between losing conviction and becoming wiser and more aware of how the country works. You're making an assumption that people who become more conservative with age are doing the former, when it seems the latter is much more plausible as people age.

 

[alpinism]

What about the south?

You're right, there are regional cultural differences as well.

At the same time, inner city areas in the south such as Atlanta or Charlottle tend to vote more democratic.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Overall:

Districts with wealthier and older populations tend to vote more conservative (ie rural areas and wealthy suburbs).

Districts with younger and poorer populations as well as more immigrants tend to vote more liberal (ie inner cities and working class suburbs).

Not anymore. Even the wealthiest households vote Democratic now. Obama dominated Mitt Romney when it came to the wealthiest households.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49726054

 

[Falconclaw]

Not anymore. Even the wealthiest households vote Democratic now. Obama dominated Mitt Romney when it came to the wealthiest households.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49726054

On the other hand, Romney won the over $50,000 income vote. So the upper middle class is Republican.

 

[Falconclaw]

Corporate policies distort health care decisions in a lot of ways. In health care, we don't need government nor corporate entities making decisions. That's what we will be trained to do. The solution is very simple, let doctors practice medicine, not politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_practice

Doctors can practice medicine, but you're still going to need insurance companies to pay for it. Health insurance is obviously a desirable product to have on the market, but in its current form, where it's very distorted by government policies, it sucks.

Let the doctors do the medicine, let the actuaries handle the insurance premiums.

 

[Tommyguns89]

I am the Managing Editor of a conservative/libertarian monthly magazine at my school. I'm going to be the Editor in Chief next year. It's the best example I have of leadership experience, and whenever I'm asked for generic examples in interviews (e.g. describe a time you had to work in a team to overcome a challenge, etc.) I always turn to my magazine.

I definitely want to put it on my application, but it's pretty easy to find the articles I wrote if you spend five minutes doing an online search. Most of my articles are not health related, although I did write one against Obamacare, and in favor of a more free market health care system. Will any of this hurt me if the adcoms happen to be liberal Democrats?

The only way I can see this hurting is if in one your articles you come across as wanting to let people who cant afford healthcare die on the streets. Now even Ron Paul when pressed on the issue in the Republican primaries said he didnt want that to happen(proposing the doctors treat the person, and then let the bankruptcy process happen once the bill came in).

 

[plumazul]

Doctors can practice medicine, but you're still going to need insurance companies to pay for it. Health insurance is obviously a desirable product to have on the market, but in its current form, where it's very distorted by government policies, it sucks.

Let the doctors do the medicine, let the actuaries handle the insurance premiums.

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

There is a huge difference between losing conviction and becoming wiser and more aware of how the country works. You're making an assumption that people who become more conservative with age are doing the former, when it seems the latter is much more plausible as people age.

And you make an assumption that liberals are not aware of how the country works (or at least less aware than conservatives), which is ridiculous. Just because people believe differently, doesn't make them ignorant.

Additionall, you assume that as people age they become more wise about governement and politics. While this is certainly the case for a subset of people (including both liberals and conservatives), I find that the majority of the population is largely ignorant of politics and how the country works beyond the headlines on Fox or MSNBC (depending on your affiliation), which are presented in such a way as to just validate the views of those that watch, rather than provide a meaningful representation of current issues and affairs with which people may become wise. This is especially true of national and global economics, due to the very complex nature of the subject.

 

[Benedictus123]

Poor guy asks an honest question and you people turn it into a boring debate about health care and an even more boring "HURF DURF CONSERVATIVES KNOW HOW THINGS REALLY WORK NU UH NO THEY DON'T!"

 

[Tommyguns89]

I've only ever seen it go the other way; i.e. someone who is a lib young, then pays 10s of 1000s in taxes quarterly and that changes their tune.

You know what they say, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

Lots of people say that, and lots of people are idiots. I think the key is to avoid making simple arguments like this. Many issues are more nuanced. For example with the tax issue, many liberals(myself included) think that the top income tax rate is too high, relative to the rates on investments. Then there is the issue of deductions and separate taxes like the estate tax. Its not as simple as wanting to "soak the successful" as you hear from right wing sources. Intelligent people on both sides rarely fall into the cookie cutter form of modern politics which for the most part is dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator in 35 second soundbites.

 

[touchpause13]

Lots of people say that, and lots of people are idiots. I think the key is to avoid making simple arguments like this. Many issues are more nuanced. For example with the tax issue, many liberals(myself included) think that the top income tax rate is too high, relative to the rates on investments. Then there is the issue of deductions and separate taxes like the estate tax. Its not as simple as wanting to "soak the successful" as you hear from right wing sources. Intelligent people on both sides rarely fall into the cookie cutter form of modern politics which for the most part is dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator in 35 second soundbites.

which was my point when i said as long as OP can discuss about his/her beliefs without resorting to talking points and stereotypes i think they will be fine if they get asked about he affordable care actor another hot button topic in an interview situation.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

And what do you make of the Oregon experiment recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine?

I find the results of this study to be indicative of our over-dependence, as a society, on medications and the belief that they will fix issues that are largely determined by personal health habits. Of the variables measured, most were these types of issues - hypertension, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin, etc. I don't find it suprising that giving someone health insurance doesn't make them stop smoking, eat healthy or exercise. They already know what the healthcare risks are to these lifestyle decisions without the input of a physician, and make regardless.

I would be interested in seeing variables tracked for early detection of other health issues, such as cancer and alzheimer's, as I'm guessing that these areas are where we would see the greatest impact. Additionally, I think that it would be interesting to see the differences for children that are insured vs. uninsured, and how/if having regular preventative health care as a child has any affect on personal health choices as an adult.

What I did find surprising is that they found that ED visits didn't decrease. Old habits die hard, I guess?

 

[BuddyTheElf]

Or you just didn't let yourself get greedy once you are the one paying all of the taxes to fund the programs that you believed in so much as a youth. It is unfortunate that so many people lose conviction in their beliefs as soon as they have to give something up for them.

Poor guy asks an honest question and you people turn it into a boring debate about health care and an even more boring "HURF DURF CONSERVATIVES KNOW HOW THINGS REALLY WORK NU UH NO THEY DON'T!"

That about sums it up. Unfortunately everything on SDN has to change from the original topic to an argument that has little to do with it.

Regardless. OP, you were given 2 different approaches here. One, you can be a little more bland and just focus it on the leadership and teamwork skills you learned from it. Or you can take a stand and show them your views and let them see your beliefs. Bland means you won't offend anyone. Showing your political views (in a respectful and intelligent way) can show them that you fight for what you believe in. All comes down to your preference between the two.
Good luck in applying!

 

[Long Way to Go]

I find the results of this study to be indicative of our over-dependence, as a society, on medications and the belief that they will fix issues that are largely determined by personal health habits. Of the variables measured, most were these types of issues - hypertension, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin, etc. I don't find it suprising that giving someone health insurance doesn't make them stop smoking, eat healthy or exercise. They already know what the healthcare risks are to these lifestyle decisions without the input of a physician, and make regardless.

I would be interested in seeing variables tracked for early detection of other health issues, such as cancer and alzheimer's, as I'm guessing that these areas are where we would see the greatest impact. Additionally, I think that it would be interesting to see the differences for children that are insured vs. uninsured, and how/if having regular preventative health care as a child has any affect on personal health choices as an adult.

What I did find surprising is that they found that ED visits didn't decrease. Old habits die hard, I guess?

Well, it was a fairly low-powered two-year study relative to what it was trying to measure. I'm rather surprised they got the statistically significant results that they did.

 

[FSU2013]

And you make an assumption that liberals are not aware of how the country works (or at least less aware than conservatives), which is ridiculous. Just because people believe differently, doesn't make them ignorant.

Additionall, you assume that as people age they become more wise about governement and politics. While this is certainly the case for a subset of people (including both liberals and conservatives), I find that the majority of the population is largely ignorant of politics and how the country works beyond the headlines on Fox or MSNBC (depending on your affiliation), which are presented in such a way as to just validate the views of those that watch, rather than provide a meaningful representation of current issues and affairs with which people may become wise. This is especially true of national and global economics, due to the very complex nature of the subject.

I was not. I was just trying to state that your statement was pretty short-sighted. Some people's political views evolve as they age as a function of their life experience amd' theoretically become more knowledgable and wiser. To say that it's a shame some get more conservative because they are giving up their ideals is just wrong. Some people have life experiences that make them more conservative, others more liberal - that doesn't mean they're giving up.

Lots of people say that, and lots of people are idiots. I think the key is to avoid making simple arguments like this. Many issues are more nuanced. For example with the tax issue, many liberals(myself included) think that the top income tax rate is too high, relative to the rates on investments. Then there is the issue of deductions and separate taxes like the estate tax. Its not as simple as wanting to "soak the successful" as you hear from right wing sources. Intelligent people on both sides rarely fall into the cookie cutter form of modern politics which for the most part is dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator in 35 second soundbites.

It was just a joke.