<p>
</p>
<p>For general discussions, it’s obviously going to be anti-Ivy. For example, it’s a lot more pretentious to openly argue that Harvard is better than Michigan, than to argue that Michigan is as good as Harvard.</p>
<p>But on the whole, this site is very ivy-centric. Even excluding the other private elites, since the Ivy forums are right on the index.</p>
<p>SonataX, well put! I pretty much agree with everything you stated in regards to the other individuals post on the Swiss.</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad, what I mean by “average” is that I was not ranked in the top 20% at Michigan. I barely had a Cum Laude attached to my diploma…no magna and certainly no summa. In a class of 300, about 15%-20% enrolled in top 25 Law schools, another 5% enrolled into respected graduate econ programs and about 10%-15% went into respected IBs and Mcs. In short, roughly 30%-40% of my classmates had similar options to mine when they graduated. I was not more driven, lucky or capable than a large chunk of the students in my class.</p>
<p>And Ivy_Grad, society does not respect the Ivies as much as you think…and certainly not as much as the young and impressionable members of this forum do. The Ivies are over-respected primarily by the moderately educated middle class. The uneducated don’t even know the Ivy League and the highly educated aren’t blinded by the Ivy League. Like I always say, the Ivies are 8 of the country’s top 20 universities…no more and no less. Sure that’s impressive, but there are a dozen or so other universities that are just as good.</p>
<p>IVY_GRAD: the swiss are only provided this " free" coverage because they are taxed out their @$$es for it. anyway, why should ‘elective’ surgeries be provided gratis by the government?</p>
<p>ACA, I graduated in May of 1996. Things don’t change much in 10 years. You make it sound like I graduated in 1966! LOL </p>
<p>And my exposure to Michigan did not end in 1996. I visit Ann Arbor at least once a year. I also had the opportunity to live in Ann Abor in 2001-2003 because I was working for Ford at the time and could commute from Ann Arbor to Dearborn. </p>
<p>I also recruited students on Michigan’s campus for Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Ford and Eaton in the 1997-2004 period and things did not change. In fact, as the years past, it seemed more companies were coming to Michigan’s campus. I remember in 2001 and 2002, when campus recruiting really slowed down, Michigan was one of only a dozen or so schools that was still visited by most major companies.</p>
<p>MCP, you are 18 years old. How do you know so much about Switzerland? Taxes in Switzerland, as Ivy Grad already pointed out, aren’t that high. In fact, most countries in Western Europe have taxes in the 30%-45% range, depending on the country. US taxes are in the 35%-40% range, depending on the city and the state.</p>
<p>Alex, as an econ major, don’t you think demand for Umich would greatly increase if such job opportunities, prestige, and quality of education were so high at Umich?</p>
<p>However, demand is relatively low for Umich for undergrad (when compared to other top schools you are comparing it with). Selectivity and acceptance rates = student demand.</p>
<p>Not really ACA. I agree that acceptance rate and selectivity attracts students, but I do not think that there is a perfect correlation between what adcoms/corporate recruiters think and what high school students think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, tax rates are lower in Switzerland than they are in the US (as I’ve mentioned). Universal coverage has little to do with tax rates.</p>
<p>Next, you ask: “Why should the government provide free health care coverage?”</p>
<p>Well, consider the following (excerpts from a number of Congressional speeches):</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The US is the only industrialized country that doesn’t provide universal health care coverage to its citizens</p></li>
<li><p>Yet, the US spends over $1.6 trillion on health care.</p></li>
<li><p>Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized worlds median of $2,193</p></li>
<li><p>Switzerland, at number two, spends $3,106. That is $2,100 less per year per person than the US. </p></li>
<li><p>Yet, every one of these countries has universal health insurance except the US.</p></li>
<li><p>Even though the US has spends more on health care than any other country (per capita) the US still has 45 million uninsured and 40 million underinsured.</p></li>
<li><p>What does that extra hundreds of billions of dollars of spending buy us?: </p></li>
<li><p>Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. </p></li>
<li><p>Americans go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. </p></li>
<li><p>Americans get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. </p></li>
<li><p>Americans are less satisfied with their health care than our counterparts in other countries. </p></li>
<li><p>American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. </p></li>
<li><p>Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. </p></li>
<li><p>Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. </p></li>
<li><p>Most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the US does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.</p></li>
<li><p>A new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>- Basically, We’re already paying for universal coverage. We’re just not getting it.</p>
<p>Here are some repercussions of the current failed system:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. </p></li>
<li><p>Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies. </p></li>
<li><p>Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma. </p></li>
<li><p>Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. </p></li>
<li><p>Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty. </p></li>
<li><p>People with pneumonia who dont have health insurance are less likely to receive X-rays or consultations. </p></li>
<li><p>The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five percent higher than for someone with insurance. </p></li>
<li><p>Because the uninsured are sicker than the rest of us, they cant get better jobs, and because they cant get better jobs they cant afford health insurance, and because they cant afford health insurance they get even sicker.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>**Basically, this isn’t about having enough money (we spend more than anyone does already), this isn’t about taxes (countries with lower tax rates cover all of their citizens), this isn’t about implementing “socialism” (we’re already spending enough to cover everyone). </p>
<p>This is about many things, but mainly this is about massive inefficiency at a colossal scale.**</p>
<p>Why is it that the Canadians head down to the US for transplants and various other operations? Or is their system poor, too.</p>
<p>How do you adjust for the culture and population distribution of America? You can’t just graft on another countrie’s system for various reasons. What would you propose?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not proposing anything.</p>
<p>I’m just laying out the facts.</p>
<p>Americans believe that universal health care coverage would require massive tax increases - that thinking just doesn’t jibe with the current numbers.</p>
<p>This is about massive, MASSIVE inefficiency multiplied by a broken health care system plagued by red tape.</p>
<p>It’s complex, yes. It’s a freaking mess, yes. </p>
<p>But to those who cry: “The Europeans have universal coverage because they get taxed up the @ss!!!” are not only woefully misinformed, they are missing the entire picture.</p>
<p>Drab, for the very wealthy, the US offers some of the better facilities in the world. However, for the masses, the US medical system could learn a thing or two from the Europeans. A good friend of mine (an MIT-educated PhD in Mechanical Engineering) has had the luxury of working for GE Medical both in the US and in Europe. He works very closely with doctors at a very high level. In his opinion, the European system makes more sense on most levels. Both medical systems need serious reforms mind you, but he feels that the European system is more effective.</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad, you and I agree on something (Medical systems)…who would have thunk it! hehe And Slipper and I agree that Casablanca in an awesome movie. So I guess there can be peace on Earth afterall!</p>
<p>Consider this curious anomaly:</p>
<p>America spends nearly half a trillion dollars on military expenditures (waaaay more than any other country), yet, many of our “boots on the ground” in Iraq don’t have basic body armor!!!</p>
<p>Where the hell does all the money go???</p>
<p>Government inefficiency. Something to think about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hey great minds have to think alike at least on SOME things, my friend!</p>
<p>(p.s. Casablanca rules)</p>
<p>Look, I know I’ve taken up a lot of space on this issue, but it’s something I feel pretty strongly about.</p>
<p>I don’t worry about health care coverage for myself - me and my family are extremely well covered and some of my best friends are physicians.</p>
<p>I just believe that the current system is a complete shambles, is way short-changing the American taxpayer and, last but not least, it hurts America’s competitiveness in the long run.</p>
<p>It’s an urgent issue and something needs to be done.</p>
<p>I think demand for Michigan is pretty high. They receive 25000+ applications. That is one of the highest numbers in the top 25, besides berkeley and ucla which receive around 40,000. Interestingly, berkeley only recieves 6,300 non-resident applications. UVA receives over 9,000 non-resident applications. Though I can’t find the figures I would bet more oos apply to michigan also, since like uva it is known to be friendlier to out of staters.</p>
<p>The problem in the U.S is that the system they have chosen deals with insurance through work. This was an accident. It is a relic of the World War II years, when a booming economy and labor shortages were prevelant as were wage and price controls. Fringe benefits such as health insurance were necessary to attract workers.
There is a severe adverse selection problem when getting insurance other than through the workplace. But this is not the main reason there are so many uninsured. A large fraction of the 40 million uninsured have jobs. They are mostly young 24-40. Most work for small firms where loading costs are high. Either that or they work for a large firm in a low-wage industry, and since premiums are so high compared to wages and wages are in fact part of the compensation, the equilibrium wage cannot be low enough to provide good health benefits. This is the problem Walmart is encountering in Maryland, where the state of Maryland is mandating they provide better benefits and wages at walmart cannot get much lower. Perhaps, the walmart workers of maryland will get better Health insurance, but if cash wages stay the same, employmend will go down.</p>
<p>hooareyou, Michigan’s problem isn’t its ability to attract a very large and well qualified applicant pool. As you point out, Michigan’s applicant pool of 25,000 is one of the 5 largrest among top 25 universities. </p>
<p>Michigan’s ability to attract very talented students isn’t the problem either. Michigan attracts more students with perfect grades, top 1% class ranks and 1400+ SAT scores (in one sitting, which translates to 1450+ if you measure it the way the privates do) than any university in the nation. Such students make up 25% (or 1,500 Freshmen/year) of Michigan’s class. The mid 50% of Michigan students still have unweighed GPAs that range between 3.6 and 3.9, class tranks that range between the top 2% and the top 5% and SAT scores that range from 1250-1400 (again, in one sitting, which translates to 1280-1440 if you measure it the way the privates do). In short, only the bottom 25% of Michigan’s students aren’t excellent and most of those students are not part of the college of Engineering or the college of LSA. </p>
<p>Michigan’s yield isn’t the problem either. 15 of the top 25 universities have lower yield rates than Michigan’s 45%. </p>
<p>Michigan’s problem is the size of its freshman class. Michigan’s freshman class hovers between 5,500 and 6,000. The second largest Freshman class among top 25 universities is Cal’s, with 3,500-4,000 Freshmen. Cornell is third with 3,000-3,500 freshmen. In other words, Michigan has, on average, at least 2,000 (50%) more Freshmen that the second largest university in its peer group.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley is known as being good to out of staters. Mich and U Va are (in comparison). It seems like California can afford to do it more based on the state and the way it works. Personally, I think that more oos students should be accepted, at least a few percent more, and that Berkeley should do a better job of propaganda <em>cough</em> promoting its image out of state. But that’s another story.</p>