Physician political orientation

[goleafsgochris]

21 hours ago, f011235813 said:

Can't say the schools NECESSARILY select for this, but the vast majority of my fellow students are Left leaning, many far left. By contrast, I have only met a couple students in all years combined who have a view that's even slightly to the right of centre. CASPER my year didn't seem heavily political, and in my MMI, nothing overtly political really came up. 

Med students are quite left leaning.  Most practicing physicians however become right of centre fiscally, possibly due to their income.

[Monkey D. Luffy]

8 hours ago, Persephone said:

You've made no case that it wouldn't be a good thing. Actually read any leftist thought (which is never as simple as pay the same to everyone, but more make sure everyone has what they need for a good quality life) and you will see plenty of arguments for why it would be better than the nightmare world we live in now.

Nightmare world? We live in a society today in which the common person has by far the best standard of living compared to anywhere in the world in any time period. The only reason you have smart phones, iPads, etc. is because an entrepreneur could justify taking a large risk producing them because taxes were low enough. The problem with high taxation is that it stagnates industry, and this means a lower quality of living for everyone.

[nice]

.

[medigeek]

 

11 hours ago, vellichor said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html

Don’t think anyone is going to convince anyone who to vote for in this thread, so I’m gonna leave this article here. It’s a little dated and also American, but interesting. Thoughts? 

Final note- communism is wildly not what any major Canadian party (with a lot of current support I might add) is going for lol, so vilifying the NDP in those terms is ridiculous. Unless you’re implying in the same breath that the conservatives are also fascists? 

False. There are people who embrace the idealogy (mpps) within the NDP party. 

7 hours ago, Monkey D. Luffy said:

Nightmare world? We live in a society today in which the common person has by far the best standard of living compared to anywhere in the world in any time period. The only reason you have smart phones, iPads, etc. is because an entrepreneur could justify taking a large risk producing them because taxes were low enough. The problem with high taxation is that it stagnates industry, and this means a lower quality of living for everyone.

Exactly! But to them, someone should innovate out of their good will alone and expect nothing more for it in return. Not only is it ridiculous, but it is severely immoral for someone to act entitled to something someone else built. 

[Persephone]

18 hours ago, Redpill said:

If we're throwing sweeping generalizations out there, should probably also bring up how whiny and entitled left-wingers tend to be as they try their hardest to take other people's money, all the while thinking themselves even more morally upright then conservatives

lol ok "redpill" (are you an MRA or something?)

I am about to become upper middle class and I am advocating taxing myself more...not exactly about being entitled to other people's money when I won't be receiving any of it. It's about creating a society where we take care of the most vulnerable populations. Large wealth gaps in society aren't good for anyone and neither are the rigid and entrenched hierarchies those large wealth gaps induce.

[Persephone]

18 hours ago, medigeek said:

And socialism works until you run out of other people's money. 

This is funnily enough how investment capitalism works.

16 hours ago, medigeek said:

Okay? I also own a business and employ people. Meaning I understand how business and entrepreneurship works rather than reading about how it "should work" in the teachings of Marx or whatever your choice of commie material may be. 

Oh what a nightmare we live in. Colossal GDP per capita compared to the last century. Relative world peace. Most disease wiped out and/or controlled to some degree. Inequality is a fact of human life. We should keep it under control via charitable initiatives and yes some public services.

But to think everyone should give up what they worked for to the government? Gimme a break dude... Millions of people died fighting your ideas. And others died trying to escape it to come to capitalism. 

 

What better motivation to innovate and develop than to be equal to everyone else in the end! Surely people in the 20th century didn't die fleeing from your ideas to come to a capitalist society. 

I wasn't looking to compare credentials, I was providing anecdata that your "truism" about maturity or aging equating to more conservative values is not actually true. What tends to happen is people who accumulate more wealth tend to become more conservative and less compassionate, age does not seem to be the determining factor:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html

We have a colossal global GDP and yet we still have Indigenous communities without clean water or adequate housing in our country? We still have homeless people? What kind of world is that that doesn't bother providing lasting solutions for those problems but mostly tries to sweep them under the rug? We allow disabled people to scrape by barely able to afford the necessities of life. Sure there are certain conditions that have improved for the privileged among us in the global north, but that improvement has been based on the exploitation of workers in the global south where capitalism drives down workers safety and environmental regulations in a race to the bottom. I don't believe history is one long linear progression towards a brighter future, it's far more complex than that. I mean just look at what industrial capitalism is doing to the planet. And the people most harmed by that ravaging of the commons will be those with the least amount of wealth.

It speaks to an incredible ignorance of history and of human psychology to think capitalism is the only thing that motivates people to invent and explore and discover new things. That drive existed long before capitalism was around. There is an inherent joy in those things. The overwhelming majority of people feel fulfilled only when they are productive. Also don't start straw-manning my ideas as tied to the USSR or whatever else. I am not an authoritarian, I don't agree with authoritarian systems. A compassionate society does not involve that.

[medigeek]

3 minutes ago, Persephone said:

This is funnily enough how investment capitalism works.

I wasn't looking to compare credentials, I was providing anecdata that your "truism" about maturity or aging equating to more conservative values is not actually true. What tends to happen is people who accumulate more wealth tend to become more conservative and less compassionate, age does not seem to be the determining factor:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html

We have a colossal global GDP and yet we still have Indigenous communities without clean water or adequate housing in our country? We still have homeless people? What kind of world is that that doesn't bother providing lasting solutions for those problems but mostly tries to sweep them under the rug? We allow disabled people to scrape by barely able to afford the necessities of life. Sure there are certain conditions that have improved for the privileged among us in the global north, but that improvement has been based on the exploitation of workers in the global south where capitalism drives down workers safety and environmental regulations in a race to the bottom. I don't believe history is one long linear progression towards a brighter future, it's far more complex than that. I mean just look at what industrial capitalism is doing to the planet. And the people most harmed by that ravaging of the commons will be those with the least amount of wealth.

It speaks to an incredible ignorance of history and of human psychology to think capitalism is the only thing that motivates people to invent and explore and discover new things. That drive existed long before capitalism was around. There is an inherent joy in those things. The overwhelming majority of people feel fulfilled only when they are productive. Also don't start straw-manning my ideas as tied to the USSR or whatever else. I am not an authoritarian, I don't agree with authoritarian systems. A compassionate society does not involve that.

1) You're comparing financial investments to taxation? You understand one is voluntarily and going into something I know vs. involuntary and going into something I may not know/agree with?

 

2) All those issues you named. Why do you want to solve them via taxing the successful people of society? Why not first get rid of all the public sector administrators who make 6 figures doing nothing all day? Why not give the public sector a sharp pay cut? Why not cut useless social programs that exist only to satisfy social justice warriors? You realize how much government waste there is? Until you first take ALL of that and funnel it directly to those people, you cannot argue for more taxes. 

But lemme guess... it's totally okay for the public sector to get a giant raise (as they have even this year) while the private sector is underpaid and doctors face pay cuts. It's totally okay for admins to make their 130k (of tax money) with mega benefits. But god forbid a doctor makes good money (with 0 benefits). 

 

3) Do you ever wonder why capitalist nations attract so many immigrants and communist nations had people fleeing in droves? Or why cuts to X field (ex. 90s for doctors in Ontario) led to a giant exodus to USA? The profit motive is strong and you citing inventions from the bronze age doesn't help your argument as to why it doesn't matter now. 

[medigeek]

Lets also not forget you're trying to equalize the outcome when people are absolutely not equal. 

[Persephone]

1 minute ago, medigeek said:

Lets also not forget you're trying to equalize the outcome when people are absolutely not equal. 

No I'm not trying to equalize any outcomes. I want the world to be a fairer and less cruel place. That's markedly different. Whatever differences people may have I don't think they should impact whether or not someone should be able to have shelter and eat.

4 minutes ago, medigeek said:

1) You're comparing financial investments to taxation? You understand one is voluntarily and going into something I know vs. involuntary and going into something I may not know/agree with?

2) All those issues you named. Why do you want to solve them via taxing the successful people of society? Why not first get rid of all the public sector administrators who make 6 figures doing nothing all day? Why not give the public sector a sharp pay cut? Why not cut useless social programs that exist only to satisfy social justice warriors? You realize how much government waste there is? Until you first take ALL of that and funnel it directly to those people, you cannot argue for more taxes. 

But lemme guess... it's totally okay for the public sector to get a giant raise (as they have even this year) while the private sector is underpaid and doctors face pay cuts. It's totally okay for admins to make their 130k (of tax money) with mega benefits. But god forbid a doctor makes good money (with 0 benefits).

3) Do you ever wonder why capitalist nations attract so many immigrants and communist nations had people fleeing in droves? Or why cuts to X field (ex. 90s for doctors in Ontario) led to a giant exodus to USA? The profit motive is strong and you citing inventions from the bronze age doesn't help your argument as to why it doesn't matter now. 

1) Yup, taxes aren't voluntary. But charities definitely don't solve social problems (and businesses only by accident). They're band-aids. You ever see a charity put itself out of business because it solved a social problem like homelessness? Those are problems which only a restructuring of our systems can solve. That is to say, I'm not sure taxes will even fix it. We need to dismantle and rebuild from the ground up.

2) Why are you so keen on punishing government employees when there are billionaires that definitely don't work 20 thousand times harder than the average person, and somehow we think they deserve 20 thousand times the amount of money? What useless social programs are you referring to?  How much funding do you think they're getting that you believe that would be the capital needed to fix social problems? I am not arguing for doctors to make less while others make more. I am arguing that we need to look at our society and how it's structured and ask ourselves if the way it currently runs is moral (imo it is not).

3) I do not wonder why. They were living under an oppressive regime. Despite that oppressiveness those regimes did value technological innovation and many North American scientists had to fight with their own governments to be allowed to visit the USSR to be able to receive their knowledge. Science doesn't need to have anything to do with profit motive. We just have to decide as a society to put our resources towards developing it. And once again, stop pretending like I'm arguing for authoritarian communism over here, it's disingenuous and I've already asked you to stop once.

The profit motive is powerful, but it's not the only motive that creates productivity and as a motive it produces a lot of waste and greed that could be de-emphasized under more cooperative models of societal organization.

[Persephone]

Just posting to add I am gonna bow out of this thread now for my own sanity, since my nervous system cannot differentiate between an attacking cougar and an online argument and it is really hard on my body *sigh*. Peace.

[rmorelan]

11 hours ago, Monkey D. Luffy said:

Nightmare world? We live in a society today in which the common person has by far the best standard of living compared to anywhere in the world in any time period. The only reason you have smart phones, iPads, etc. is because an entrepreneur could justify taking a large risk producing them because taxes were low enough. The problem with high taxation is that it stagnates industry, and this means a lower quality of living for everyone.

well......I mean economically speaking it means an AVERAGE lower standard of living for everyone. However that doesn't mean that large numbers of people wouldn't be better off with higher taxation if it was presumably spend on social interests. Have a few people at the top holding a lot of wealth really distorts the statistics. 

That is actually the big question - exactly how much do we want to lower the average income of a person to provide a particular minimum standard of living for all. Not saying I have the answer - and no one has THE answer because it is a choice not at universal truth - but there are a lot of countries with much higher taxation than Canada and the US which push that income into the social net, and are doing just fine thank you very much ha. 

You are absolutely right the average person it doing better now from a standard of living point of view. That doesn't automatically mean we are doing the best allocation of resources. I mean on average almost everywhere in the world it is better than they were before - some truly do have nightmare societal structures (I would say there may not be any right answer, but there sure are wrong ones).

One thing we are going to have to be very careful about is that any society with an income disparity beyond a particular point becomes unstable, regardless of how well off the common person is etc. Access to instant information on exactly how bad that difference just makes it worse.  

 

 

[Redpill]

33 minutes ago, rmorelan said:

well......I mean economically speaking it means an AVERAGE lower standard of living for everyone. However that doesn't mean that large numbers of people wouldn't be better off with higher taxation if it was presumably spend on social interests. Have a few people at the top holding a lot of wealth really distorts the statistics. 

That is actually the big question - exactly how much do we want to lower the average income of a person to provide a particular minimum standard of living for all. Not saying I have the answer - and no one has THE answer because it is a choice not at universal truth - but there are a lot of countries with much higher taxation than Canada and the US which push that income into the social net, and are doing just fine thank you very much ha. 

You are absolutely right the average person it doing better now from a standard of living point of view. That doesn't automatically mean we are doing the best allocation of resources. I mean on average almost everywhere in the world it is better than they were before - some truly do have nightmare societal structures (I would say there may not be any right answer, but there sure are wrong ones).

One thing we are going to have to be very careful about is that any society with an income disparity beyond a particular point becomes unstable, regardless of how well off the common person is etc. Access to instant information on exactly how bad that difference just makes it worse. 

The complicating factor I think is our proximity to the US. We would probably be much more left-wing as a country if it weren't for their political influence, and the fact that as soon as we raise taxes too high and/or reduce pay people begin to seek opportunity south of the border. It happened with doctors in the 90s and I'd say its a huge problem right now with tech grads, who happily take their (taxpayer-subsidized) Waterloo degrees and go to Silicon Valley (admittedly not an easy problem to solve for government). It's not as big of an issue in European countries because Europe is farther away, and also more different culturally then the US.

For Canada its not just a question of compassion vs selfishness. Capital is mobile, and that includes human capital. Tax too hard and no matter how good your intentions are, the country will suffer as the brightest move on in search of better economic opportunity.

I also think its a mistake to take continued economic growth for granted, which many of the left-wing parties tend to do. Government programs can only be funded if you have a strong economy and growing GDP. Already Canada is looking like a terrible place for foreign investment thanks to Horgan and the Kinder Morgan fiasco, if you raise corporate taxes too high you deter further investment and stagnate the economy. Good luck funding healthcare and education then.

Not that I'm saying that left-wing parties are too far left right now, or that anything they're currently suggesting will hurt the country significantly. But I think its foolhardy to think there are no consequences to enacting left-wing policy, and automatically assume everyone to the right of you politically is selfish and greedy (as many in this thread have expressed).

[la marzocco]

32 minutes ago, Redpill said:

The complicating factor I think is our proximity to the US. We would probably be much more left-wing as a country if it weren't for their political influence, and the fact that as soon as we raise taxes too high and/or reduce pay people begin to seek opportunity south of the border. It happened with doctors in the 90s and I'd say its a huge problem right now with tech grads, who happily take their (taxpayer-subsidized) Waterloo degrees and go to Silicon Valley (admittedly not an easy problem to solve for government). It's not as big of an issue in European countries because Europe is farther away, and also more different culturally then the US.

For Canada its not just a question of compassion vs selfishness. Capital is mobile, and that includes human capital. Tax too hard and no matter how good your intentions are, the country will suffer as the brightest move on in search of better economic opportunity.

I cannot help but agreed with some of this. A majority of my friends who did CS or engineering at Waterloo did in fact move to the states for opportunities and better $. It's hard for them to stay from a learning perspective as well because the Silicon Valley has the ecosystem in place to foster start-ups, although that wave is starting to fade in the Valley. Waterloo is doing a good job building a mini hub. Canada has very good potential, but we do not do enough to retain talent, but it is not entirely Canada's fault, partly it's about critical mass and having that ecosystem in place to retain talent. The superclusters idea that the federal government unveiled may be more than just nomenclature - it's really about building critical mass and creating a specialize niche for each area of development - for example, AI in Montreal - compounded by Facebook's investment and RBC's investment in MTL.

Regarding taxation policies - I have to agree. Much of our investment draw from international capital is due to our competitive tax rates in comparison to the US, but much of that has been lost in face of Trump's tax reforms enacted 2018 and prospectively. Because of how tied our economies are, it is hard to draw up tax policies in a vacuum as (intellectual, financial, and etc.) capital migration is relatively easy. And we can only spend as much as we can collect in order to avoid a deficit. As much as the federal government shift the focus to "debt-to-GDP" ratio, the debt is still swelling, and when interest rate escalates, these debt-servicing costs are going to be a pain. So Canada is in a unique spot - we want a good social safety net for all, but it is getting increasingly difficult to find funding. 

And no party wants to be that party pooper and raise tax revenues to fund these services - we saw how Mulroney's government got decimated when his party introduced the GST.. the electorate just does not absorb this well, regardless of intentions, and government is very careful how they spend their political capital. It's unfortunate, because these days GST and sales revenues form 20% of the total annual federal tax revenues. Can the government imagine not having that anymore? No. Also, another example is the municipal land transfer tax (mltt) implemented in Toronto since 2008 by former mayor david miller. The mltt has helped kept city council afloat in its budget with the real estate boom.. and no one ever expected the mltt to be a major source of revenue, but now Toronto council is somewhat hooked on it. The issue is this is a volatile revenue source - if the housing market softens further, there will need to be program cuts to keep the budget balanced. Anyways, I do believe that there should be rationalization of the government and that the auditor general should be given more resources to conduct more value-for-money audits to make sure taxpayers' dollars are delivered to where it is needed most - resource allocation, resource allocation. 

[TheSalmonMousse]

On 6/5/2018 at 6:51 PM, medigeek said:

 

 

On 6/5/2018 at 11:16 AM, Monkey D. Luffy said:

The problem with high taxation is that it stagnates industry, and this means a lower quality of living for everyone.

 

On 6/5/2018 at 11:44 PM, Redpill said:

 

I have a couple questions for you right-leaning folks:

I often hear this idea that higher taxes hinder industry. While it seems obvious to me that extremely high taxes will have that effect, it's much less clear that there would be a negative impact following slight or moderate increases. Is there any clear evidence that moderate tax increases directly stifle growth? Also, aren't there numerous counter-examples of periods of sustained growth where taxes were also much higher (for instance the 50s in the US - income tax rates above 90% for top bracket)?

I'm also curious to know if you think that market conditions (supply and demand) provide an adequate justification of physicians' earnings?

I'm not trying to make any point here, just genuinely interested in hearing your ideas.

[Blasé]

I vote with my wallet's best interest in mind (conservative). It's great to be for all these social issues when the taxes needed to support them aren't taking a huge chunk of your money (and as students, let's be honest, we aren't paying that much in taxes anyways). Truth be told, when I read about the government spending tax dollars to support refugees from another country by giving them $30k annually, it definitely erodes my faith in the government spending tax dollars with the best interest of the country in mind. That was just an example, but the principle is the same -- I don't trust the government to spend the money wisely. Consequently, I vote fiscally conservative and likely always will. 

[medigeek]

On 6/7/2018 at 9:07 PM, TheSalmonMousse said:

 

 

I have a couple questions for you right-leaning folks:

I often hear this idea that higher taxes hinder industry. While it seems obvious to me that extremely high taxes will have that effect, it's much less clear that there would be a negative impact following slight or moderate increases. Is there any clear evidence that moderate tax increases directly stifle growth? Also, aren't there numerous counter-examples of periods of sustained growth where taxes were also much higher (for instance the 50s in the US - income tax rates above 90% for top bracket)?

I'm also curious to know if you think that market conditions (supply and demand) provide an adequate justification of physicians' earnings?

I'm not trying to make any point here, just genuinely interested in hearing your ideas.

It scares investors. It repels talent from the get-go. 

The 50s were an entirely different world. There are a million variables in between that change things. But it's not always tax cuts/increase that are pro/anti growth. You can argue that under certain conditions, you get growth regardless and/or a recession. But a left leaning government is also very likely to over regulate and be anti-business in general which kills growth. 

[rmorelan]

12 hours ago, medigeek said:

It scares investors. It repels talent from the get-go. 

The 50s were an entirely different world. There are a million variables in between that change things. But it's not always tax cuts/increase that are pro/anti growth. You can argue that under certain conditions, you get growth regardless and/or a recession. But a left leaning government is also very likely to over regulate and be anti-business in general which kills growth. 

I mean not that regulations are all bad either - the idea that growth at (almost) any cost is probably a bad idea. The US didn't have enough regulations on its banking industry in the last 2000s and almost destroyed their entire economy, and required massive government bail outs. There are ton of other examples where unchecked thing go to a far extreme much to the destruction of things. Captialism with its entire survival of the fittest model of things does seem to include natures rather dramatic cycles (feast and famine cycles) - that might be best for the animal kingdom but at some point it isn't good enough for a society. 

Growth is a tool that achieves particular goals - the question I think with all of this is what actually is the end goal then and keep that in mind. 

[Rabeprazole]

I also know about politics. There's a blue, red, orange, and sometimes green.

[adhominem]

Having done several rounds of MMIs in Alberta I would definitely agree that there are questions which favor a left-leaning ideology. It is no secret that most academics are left-leaning, and admissions committees are undeniably going to leaning in that direction as well due to the biases of the individuals creating the questions and discussing what sort of 'problematic' (i.e. right wing) answers could arise. 

[A-Stark]

On 6/5/2018 at 9:12 PM, medigeek said:

2) All those issues you named. Why do you want to solve them via taxing the successful people of society? Why not first get rid of all the public sector administrators who make 6 figures doing nothing all day? Why not give the public sector a sharp pay cut? Why not cut useless social programs that exist only to satisfy social justice warriors? You realize how much government waste there is? Until you first take ALL of that and funnel it directly to those people, you cannot argue for more taxes. 

But lemme guess... it's totally okay for the public sector to get a giant raise (as they have even this year) while the private sector is underpaid and doctors face pay cuts. It's totally okay for admins to make their 130k (of tax money) with mega benefits. But god forbid a doctor makes good money (with 0 benefits). 

Wait - what public sector administrators make 6 figures doing "nothing" all day? Perhaps hospital nursing managers? I'm sure there is room to trim that particular sort of fat, but they're not doing nothing. And let's not forget that physician services are well over 90% funded (perhaps over 95%) from the public purse. We are a major expenditure for governments and it is no surprise that they have attempted to rein in billings. We could, of course, introduce the fairly gross inequalities in fee-for-service incomes amongst different specialists and GPs as a topic for discussion. 

What social programs will you cut? Which are "useless"? 

I think there are a lot of people with excessive expectations of government support, but means-testing can be problematic and expensive in itself. What's completely obvious in practice is that social determinants are always driving outcomes and we are far from tackling them adequately in Canada. 

On 6/5/2018 at 9:12 PM, medigeek said:

3) Do you ever wonder why capitalist nations attract so many immigrants and communist nations had people fleeing in droves? Or why cuts to X field (ex. 90s for doctors in Ontario) led to a giant exodus to USA? The profit motive is strong and you citing inventions from the bronze age doesn't help your argument as to why it doesn't matter now. 

And yet countries like Sweden get plenty of immigrants too (albeit with different kinds of controversies), yet they have a 20% VAT there. But I don't remember seeing a single panhandler in Stockholm or Gothenburg. We've got plenty in St John's though. 

On 6/6/2018 at 1:40 AM, la marzocco said:

And no party wants to be that party pooper and raise tax revenues to fund these services - we saw how Mulroney's government got decimated when his party introduced the GST.. the electorate just does not absorb this well, regardless of intentions, and government is very careful how they spend their political capital. It's unfortunate, because these days GST and sales revenues form 20% of the total annual federal tax revenues. Can the government imagine not having that anymore? No. Also, another example is the municipal land transfer tax (mltt) implemented in Toronto since 2008 by former mayor david miller. The mltt has helped kept city council afloat in its budget with the real estate boom.. and no one ever expected the mltt to be a major source of revenue, but now Toronto council is somewhat hooked on it. The issue is this is a volatile revenue source - if the housing market softens further, there will need to be program cuts to keep the budget balanced. Anyways, I do believe that there should be rationalization of the government and that the auditor general should be given more resources to conduct more value-for-money audits to make sure taxpayers' dollars are delivered to where it is needed most - resource allocation, resource allocation. 

The GST might have been the final straw that broke the PC camel's back, but it was Mulroney's "rolling the dice" on constitutional matters that destroyed the party. As for Toronto, the city has long subsisted on lower property taxes compared to neighbouring cities in Peel, York, and Durham. What programs can be cut there anyway? The TTC is already the least subsidized major transit system in the country and probably North America. But Doug Ford says Pickering will get the subway so... part of the problem are politicians that are venal and stupid and a public that is poorly informed and similarly stupid. But the way the average person drives is probably a good proxy for the intelligence of the average voter. 

On 6/9/2018 at 3:16 PM, adhominem said:

Having done several rounds of MMIs in Alberta I would definitely agree that there are questions which favor a left-leaning ideology. It is no secret that most academics are left-leaning, and admissions committees are undeniably going to leaning in that direction as well due to the biases of the individuals creating the questions and discussing what sort of 'problematic' (i.e. right wing) answers could arise. 

I don't think that's true at all. But the role of social determinants in health care access and outcomes is almost total. Our system is very incomplete - vast numbers of people can't afford their medications and everything from smoking to poor oral hygiene is associated with lower incomes. I'm hardly about 'equality of outcome' but ignoring inequality isn't going to break poverty cycles or lead to better population health. 

[medigeek]

13 hours ago, A-Stark said:

Wait - what public sector administrators make 6 figures doing "nothing" all day? Perhaps hospital nursing managers? I'm sure there is room to trim that particular sort of fat, but they're not doing nothing. And let's not forget that physician services are well over 90% funded (perhaps over 95%) from the public purse. We are a major expenditure for governments and it is no surprise that they have attempted to rein in billings. We could, of course, introduce the fairly gross inequalities in fee-for-service incomes amongst different specialists and GPs as a topic for discussion. 

What social programs will you cut? Which are "useless"? 

I think there are a lot of people with excessive expectations of government support, but means-testing can be problematic and expensive in itself. What's completely obvious in practice is that social determinants are always driving outcomes and we are far from tackling them adequately in Canada. 

And yet countries like Sweden get plenty of immigrants too (albeit with different kinds of controversies), yet they have a 20% VAT there. But I don't remember seeing a single panhandler in Stockholm or Gothenburg. We've got plenty in St John's though. 

 

There are truck loads of them in literally every single field. I'm not saying literally "do nothing" but that they certainly do not earn their 6 figures. 

As for social programs, I won't be naming any at the risk of offending someone. But it's a matter funding to purpose ratio. 

Sweden gets immigrants because of its proximity. 

[A-Stark]

3 hours ago, medigeek said:

Sweden gets immigrants because of its proximity. 

Proximity to where? Finland?

[rmorelan]

there is also the aspect that most medical students are young - and people that are younger tend to be more liberal in mind set. I don't want that to be confused with naive as I don't see it that way at all - still some people say that it is easier to be liberal when in many ways you are dependent on the social system at that point and not really paying for it. We all received or are going to receive through the medical system something like 25-30 years or more of highly subsidized education as an easy example - and often ignore that point when complaining about other people using different parts of the system ha.  Often there is a tendency to vote for lower taxes when you are actually paying them - which is supposed to be at least as the parties state it conservative (although when you look at it both parties seem quite similar in that regard over multiple terms in office regardless of what either one of them says). 

[adhominem]

3 hours ago, rmorelan said:

there is also the aspect that most medical students are young - and people that are younger tend to be more liberal in mind set. I don't want that to be confused with naive as I don't see it that way at all - still some people say that it is easier to be liberal when in many ways you are dependent on the social system at that point and not really paying for it. We all received or are going to receive through the medical system something like 25-30 years or more of highly subsidized education as an easy example - and often ignore that point when complaining about other people using different parts of the system ha.  Often there is a tendency to vote for lower taxes when you are actually paying them - which is supposed to be at least as the parties state it conservative (although when you look at it both parties seem quite similar in that regard over multiple terms in office regardless of what either one of them says). 

Yes, many young MD applicants are likely to be liberal. On top of that, there is no denying that academics (i.e. those who run medical schools and admissions committees) are far more left-leaning than the general public. The massive liberal bias within academia is well documented in several countries. I am quite convinced these circumstances lead to a selection bias for incoming students, though I am not aware of whether or not it has been documented. It is hard to imagine that a conservative influenced answer would be looked upon favorably by interviewers chosen by liberals when majority of the candidates are going to be delivering a more liberal answer. 

 

23 hours ago, A-Stark said:

The GST might have been the final straw that broke the PC camel's back, but it was Mulroney's "rolling the dice" on constitutional matters that destroyed the party. As for Toronto, the city has long subsisted on lower property taxes compared to neighbouring cities in Peel, York, and Durham. What programs can be cut there anyway? The TTC is already the least subsidized major transit system in the country and probably North America. But Doug Ford says Pickering will get the subway so... part of the problem are politicians that are venal and stupid and a public that is poorly informed and similarly stupid. But the way the average person drives is probably a good proxy for the intelligence of the average voter. 

I don't think that's true at all. But the role of social determinants in health care access and outcomes is almost total. Our system is very incomplete - vast numbers of people can't afford their medications and everything from smoking to poor oral hygiene is associated with lower incomes. I'm hardly about 'equality of outcome' but ignoring inequality isn't going to break poverty cycles or lead to better population health. 

Oh yes, because an intelligent voter clearly would not have voted conservative... This sort of comment proves my point about liberal bias.

[medigeek]

5 hours ago, A-Stark said:

Proximity to where? Finland?

Easier to go to Europe than North America or Australia