Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
vellichor

Physician political orientation

Recommended Posts

Whatever is left of the conservative party will get my vote.  Voted liberal the last few elections, and constant let downs on failed social policies and back-peddling. May as well vote conservative to be a bit more physician friendly, and then use my own personal time and contributions to society to full-fill my left leaning ideologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NLengr said:

We also make terrible choices for who we hire as administrators. So much of it is political patronage or union crap. Some of it is just poor decision making by people who have no qualifications to be managing a huge organization. 

 

I worked at a hospital where the manager for the OR retired and was replaced. The person who replaced them had never worked in or even been in an OR prior to starting the job. 

Yep absolutely. And those admins sit around and come up with rules to make life harder for everyone. Create more meaningless paperwork and more check boxes that serve 0 value. Their reward? A public funded 6 figure salary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PhD2MD said:

You don't agree with EVERYTHING the liberals/NDP propose. I'm sure there's SOMETHING that the conservatives support that you agree with. And yet you vote with the left based on the issues you've prioritized (which I assume is social liberalism).

Similarly, others may agree with some of the leftist platform, but still prioritize their families' well being over that platform...hence "socially liberal but fiscally conservative". The fact is that there's a lot of grey area, and many reasonable people who agree with you on social policy will vote conservative for other reasons, and chose to enact change for social issues in their own way (voting is HARDLY the most effective way to enact change). Politics, like life, is grey. If I remember your other posts correctly, your early in your training. Learning that there's grey and reasonable people on both sides will be an important skill to pick up during your training.

100% agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blasé said:

Just because they vote in line with their financial priorities doesn't mean that "they don't really care much about those beliefs." Perhaps they believe that these social issues can be addressed in a different way. For all you know, they could be actively involved with organizations that address those social issues, yet not vote for a party that also supports the same issue. My point is that it's not as black and white when voting for a political party. Very rarely do people agree with the entire platform of a party. For many people, voting comes down to prioritizing issues that are more important for them and finding a balance. Hence why you see many people on here that are socially liberal, yet are fiscally conservative.

I really think this argument is laughable. You can't go and volunteer at some refugee-oriented organization and vote for a party that wants them deported at the same time. You just can't. 

3 hours ago, PhD2MD said:

You don't agree with EVERYTHING the liberals/NDP propose. I'm sure there's SOMETHING that the conservatives support that you agree with. And yet you vote with the left based on the issues you've prioritized (which I assume is social liberalism).

Similarly, others may agree with some of the leftist platform, but still prioritize their families' well being over that platform...hence "socially liberal but fiscally conservative". The fact is that there's a lot of grey area, and many reasonable people who agree with you on social policy will vote conservative for other reasons, and chose to enact change for social issues in their own way (voting is HARDLY the most effective way to enact change). Politics, like life, is grey. If I remember your other posts correctly, your early in your training. Learning that there's grey and reasonable people on both sides will be an important skill to pick up during your training.

Early in my training, not as early in life... I obviously don't agree with everything the liberals and NDP propose. I vote based on impact on the most vulnerable. I don't come from a very well-off background and I'm content with the salary I will be making, because it'll be much more than anything my parents ever made, pay cut or not, and I think that perspective is an important one to have. I agree with you and there are indeed reasonable people on both sides. I respect people on both sides, but moral consistency is paramount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SunAndMoon said:

I really think this argument is laughable. You can't go and volunteer at some refugee-oriented organization and vote for a party that wants them deported at the same time. You just can't

Who says anyone is doing what you think they're doing? You've setup multiple strawmen of what you think these people are doing, and knocked them down. You have no idea what any of the people you disagree with here are doing. You didn't even ask once. Whether you're early in training or early in life, this is not going to serve you well in medicine. You're going to have a hard time with a lot of patients if this is how you characterize people you disagree with.

"I don't come from a very well-off background and I'm content with the salary I will be making, because it'll be much more than anything my parents ever made, pay cut or not, and I think that perspective is an important one to have."

Neither do I come from a well-off background, nor do I suspect most the people that you disagree with here. I'm the son of minority immigrants who where persecuted and worked two jobs each just to make it in Canada. This shouldn't matter for this discussion, but not coming from a well-off background does not make your argument any stronger.

My partner IS a refugee from a current war zone. The least effective way we can think of to effect change is voting for a provincial party. I can tell you that both of our families feel the same way. Where you direct your time and money has a much bigger impact then the 5 minutes it takes to tick off a box at the voting station.

"I agree with you and there are indeed reasonable people on both sides. I respect people on both sides, but moral consistency is paramount."

The fact that they disagree with you on the role of voting in effecting change on the priorities they have in life, does not make them morally inconsistent. You morally disagree with at least something on the left, and agree with at least one of the morals on the right. Yet it's not morally inconsistent of you to vote for the left. You've prioritized which of those morals you want to support through voting, and which you want to support through other means. That's a complex calculation for each individual to make, and is heavily influenced by their personal circumstances. And yet you've decided that you know whether your colleagues decisions are morally consistent, with absolutely no knowledge of the variables in their calculations. Like I said, regardless of where you are in training or in life, that approach is going to hurt you and your patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 11:19 PM, SunAndMoon said:

Yeah you don't actually believe in anything, I just want to make sure you're aware of that and accept that fact.

You sound like the guy charged for assaulting that kid in the restaurant with the MAGA hat and yelling "You ain't supporting ****"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we don't always view issues as liberal/conservative or left/right, because that often leads to tribalism and political discourse gets reduced to nothing constructive.  

 

8 hours ago, PhD2MD said:

My partner IS a refugee from a current war zone. The least effective way we can think of to effect change is voting for a provincial party. I can tell you that both of our families feel the same way. Where you direct your time and money has a much bigger impact then the 5 minutes it takes to tick off a box at the voting station.

Democracy isn't perfect, but what is? The medicine that we base our careers on isn't perfect. Democracy, however, is what modern civilization is built upon. It is not a given -- it takes work, and it asks for everyone to participate for it to work. I guess an analogy, good or bad, is vaccination and herd immunity. If enough people stay home and don't vote, the ones who do yield political power -- ramifications of which can be felt for years to come. Just look south of the border.

Be the change you want to be or see. If you want to direct your time and money towards the betterment of the society as you see fit, great. But that and voting isn't an either or situation. You can do both. If you don't like the people on the ballot, encourage people you believe in to run for public office, or run for public office yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sangria said:

I wish we don't always view issues as liberal/conservative or left/right, because that often leads to tribalism and political discourse gets reduced to nothing constructive.  

Democracy isn't perfect, but what is? The medicine that we base our careers on isn't perfect. Democracy, however, is what modern civilization is built upon. It is not a given -- it takes work, and it asks for everyone to participate for it to work. I guess an analogy, good or bad, is vaccination and herd immunity. If enough people stay home and don't vote, the ones who do yield political power -- ramifications of which can be felt for years to come. Just look south of the border.

 Be the change you want to be or see. If you want to direct your time and money towards the betterment of the society as you see fit, great. But that and voting isn't an either or situation. You can do both. If you don't like the people on the ballot, encourage people you believe in to run for public office, or run for public office yourself. 

Not sure if you're referring to my post, but if you are I think you missed the point. I did not assign any issues to any party. By no means am I saying democracy needs to be perfect in order to participate. Nor did I encourage not voting, or that voting and other actions are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, in the last paragraph I specifically explained that no one party will ever represent all of your interests, so you could vote one way to support some issues AND direct your time/money to support other issues. The context of my post was to respond to someone who believes that everyone who votes for a party other than the one they chose does not care about vulnerable people and/or lacks moral integrity. The point of my response was to make it clear that that's wrong. Nothing more, and certainly not that people should not vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PhD2MD said:

Not sure if you're referring to my post, but if you are I think you missed the point. I did not assign any issues to any party. By no means am I saying democracy needs to be perfect in order to participate. Nor did I encourage not voting, or that voting and other actions are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, in the last paragraph I specifically explained that no one party will ever represent all of your interests, so you could vote one way to support some issues AND direct your time/money to support other issues. The context of my post was to respond to someone who believes that everyone who votes for a party other than the one they chose does not care about vulnerable people and/or lacks moral integrity. The point of my response was to make it clear that that's wrong. Nothing more, and certainly not that people should not vote.

Nah, the post was not directed at you in particular. My first paragraph refers to general political discourse and the instinctive labelling as something right or left. People are often quick to take sides and point fingers, and it becomes personal. See moral integrity or the lack thereof. 

My second paragraph refers to the common belief that voting is ineffective to enable change. Maybe it was mentioned something to that effect earlier, but I think the effectiveness of voting is what the society makes of it. What I also wanted to point out, is that when we cast a vote, we don't get to separate social from fiscal issues, because whoever is voted into power will make policy changes whether the voters subscribe to it or not. These policy changes affect change on a systemic level in a way that goes far beyond what time/money one might spend on supporting the causes that they just voted against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 8:44 PM, sangria said:

I think the effectiveness of voting is what the society makes of it. What I also wanted to point out, is that when we cast a vote, we don't get to separate social from fiscal issues, because whoever is voted into power will make policy changes whether the voters subscribe to it or not. These policy changes affect change on a systemic level in a way that goes far beyond what time/money one might spend on supporting the causes that they just voted against.

Couldn't agree more with this.

I'd also add that the belief that social problems are best addressed by private institutions/charities/initiatives is a conservative position. So if you're voting conservative mainly because of fiscal issues and you also think that social issues are not best addressed by government, then you're not really socially progressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSalmonMousse said:

Couldn't agree more with this.

I'd also add that the belief that social problems are best addressed by private institutions/charities/initiatives is a conservative position. So if you're voting conservative mainly because of fiscal issues and you also think that social issues are not best addressed by government, then you're not really socially progressive.

No one (not even the most staunch conservatives I know) thinks that all social issues can be addressed privately. But it's also equally silly to think that the government is the most efficient means of social change for all social issues. So people need to stop telling others what their political orientation is or isn't just because you don't agree with how they vote. Unless you're a mindless party fanboy, each vote is based on complex evaluation of where you are in life, your experiences, what the social issues of the day are, and the party's track record etc...all of which change frequently. One should reconsider their vote just as frequently, and not be made to feel guilty by people in different situations who disagree with their vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 9:41 AM, PhD2MD said:

Who says anyone is doing what you think they're doing? You've setup multiple strawmen of what you think these people are doing, and knocked them down. You have no idea what any of the people you disagree with here are doing. You didn't even ask once. Whether you're early in training or early in life, this is not going to serve you well in medicine. You're going to have a hard time with a lot of patients if this is how you characterize people you disagree with.

"I don't come from a very well-off background and I'm content with the salary I will be making, because it'll be much more than anything my parents ever made, pay cut or not, and I think that perspective is an important one to have."

Neither do I come from a well-off background, nor do I suspect most the people that you disagree with here. I'm the son of minority immigrants who where persecuted and worked two jobs each just to make it in Canada. This shouldn't matter for this discussion, but not coming from a well-off background does not make your argument any stronger.

My partner IS a refugee from a current war zone. The least effective way we can think of to effect change is voting for a provincial party. I can tell you that both of our families feel the same way. Where you direct your time and money has a much bigger impact then the 5 minutes it takes to tick off a box at the voting station.

"I agree with you and there are indeed reasonable people on both sides. I respect people on both sides, but moral consistency is paramount."

The fact that they disagree with you on the role of voting in effecting change on the priorities they have in life, does not make them morally inconsistent. You morally disagree with at least something on the left, and agree with at least one of the morals on the right. Yet it's not morally inconsistent of you to vote for the left. You've prioritized which of those morals you want to support through voting, and which you want to support through other means. That's a complex calculation for each individual to make, and is heavily influenced by their personal circumstances. And yet you've decided that you know whether your colleagues decisions are morally consistent, with absolutely no knowledge of the variables in their calculations. Like I said, regardless of where you are in training or in life, that approach is going to hurt you and your patients.

No strawman. Doesn't it sound ridiculous to be an engaged citizen on a particular issue yet vote against its interests to further your own individual ones? Isn't it a betrayal to the cause you supposedly believe in or the people you've committed yourself to help? You can rationalize it by saying voting has little impact, yet you still find some spare energy to waste by casting your ballot according to your own personal interests only. 

Good for you on agreeing with your war zone refugee partner about the effectiveness of voting. Why you would bring them up I don't know, but I'm not really interested in partaking in the pity olympics here, and didn't bring up my background for any other reason than to support the point that I don't need that much money to live very very well, and that perspective is an important one to have. 

I'll ignore the condescension in your posts and invite you to consider that perspective next time you decide to vote for a party that threatens the vulnerable but preserves your interests.

Good luck! 

On 8/14/2018 at 11:11 AM, BalkanRelations said:

You sound like the guy charged for assaulting that kid in the restaurant with the MAGA hat and yelling "You ain't supporting ****"

You sound like you still have to work on your reading comprehension skills and sense of humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PhD2MD said:

No one (not even the most staunch conservatives I know) thinks that all social issues can be addressed privately. But it's also equally silly to think that the government is the most efficient means of social change for all social issues.

I disagree, I can think of some conservative thinkers that uphold exactly this position. I stated that this is a conservative position and did not make the blanket statement that all conservatives necessarily hold this point of view. In the same way, I'm sure everyone here is also aware that left-right is a spectrum and not some binary state and thus do not think that all progressives think government is the solution to everything all the time.

That said, I agree with what I think is the general sentiment of your post: people generally shouldn't be pigeonholed if you want productive debate. In that same spirit, I think it's important to assume that everyone here is expressing their opinions in good faith. I'd be very hesitant to ascribe any kind of nefarious motive (guilt-tripping, etc.) to someone just because they are strongly expressing opposing views. I'd rather like to think that people engage in debate not to pontificate, but to refine their own positions/ideas and possibly learn something new. I think debate is an important part of democratic life and (in addition to life experience, individual perspective and the other elements you mentioned) should be valued and encouraged despite the frictions it engenders on occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SunAndMoon said:

No strawman. Doesn't it sound ridiculous to be an engaged citizen on a particular issue yet vote against its interests to further your own individual ones? Isn't it a betrayal to the cause you supposedly believe in or the people you've committed yourself to help? You can rationalize it by saying voting has little impact, yet you still find some spare energy to waste by casting your ballot according to your own personal interests only. 

Good for you on agreeing with your war zone refugee partner about the effectiveness of voting. Why you would bring them up I don't know, but I'm not really interested in partaking in the pity olympics here, and didn't bring up my background for any other reason than to support the point that I don't need that much money to live very very well, and that perspective is an important one to have. 

I'll ignore the condescension in your posts and invite you to consider that perspective next time you decide to vote for a party that threatens the vulnerable but preserves your interests.

Good luck! 

You sound like you still have to work on your reading comprehension skills and sense of humour.

You missed the key point, again.

You don't know who I voted for.

There's no condesecnion (unlike your insinuations to everyone who disagreed with you that they're morality is inferior). Just sincerity about the difficulties your going to face if you continue to have such a difficult time understanding people who disagree with you (or in this case with people who might even agree with you but have a different opinions on how to get there which are informed by they're life experience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×