Best President in terms of salaries for Physicians?

[IslandStyle808]

Actually, it's not just naïve pre-meds who fear that the profit motive does interfere with giving quality care. Every doctor knows other physicians who practice in a fashion more conducive towards lining their pockets then patient care. I know surgeons that perform near-sham multiple-staged procedures when one good procedure would suffice for extra $$$ (with extra risk for the patient). I know medical sub specialists who run a consulting service of nearly 100 patients (guess how much individual care they get). I know doctors who perform outmoded or unindicated treatments due to better reimbursement or to monetize capital expenses.

These people infuriate me, because most doctors I know strive to provide excellent care to their patients while also caring about their bottom line (though often making monetary sacrifices for patient care). As you point out, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but it's a matter of making profit incentives align with patient care incentives. But guess what?? The government is trying to impose more "pay-for-quality," systems, and it sucks. It turns out it is really da** hard to measure quality and tie payments to it, because so much of how our patients do depends more on the patient then on us. So in the meantime, I will continue to worry about physicians obsessed first and foremost with money, as they will end up making conditions and regulations much more onerous for the rest of us who want to provide great care while earning a good living.

This post nails it in ways I could never explain.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Stagg737]

How much could Sanders actually accomplish though, even if he's elected? (genuine question here)
Obviously he'd need a Democratic majority in Congress, which he doesn't have right now. And I would guess that many Democrats might even think his plans are extreme.

That was part of the reason I initially liked Bernie. His actual desire to help people is great, but I don't think he would have been able to push any of his insane ideas through a gridlocked congress. Especially when he was making statements essentially saying congress is one of the biggest problems with the U.S. I'm not sure how much he could actually accomplish, but unless he somehow ended up with a democratic house and senate, I don't see him having a lot of success with a lot of his proposals...

You are great at personal insults! Now let's try something else - answer the question I asked. If you said that to a person who is responsible for deciding who gets to even try to become a doctor, what do you think the result would be?

If a person says the only reason they want to be a doctor is money they'd probably get rejected before they could walk out the door. If a person says one of the reasons they want to be a physician is because of job and financial security, they'd probably be seen as someone who thought about the long run instead of the dime-a-dozen "this is my dream" candidate.

 

[Dave89]

And Trump most likely isn't far right at all, but a lot of his rhetoric is far right (e.g., build a wall between the US and Mexico, deport 12 million illegal immigrants), and he does appeal to a significant number of far right voters too (as well as many others).

Actually, the Old Left was also in favor of advancing benefits specifically for Americans. The notion that being tight on immigration is a far-Right position is farcical from a historical perspective.

But that's not the focus of this thread, so...

I'd say that the Republican candidates are likely to be best for doctors, but in light of how bad Clinton and Sanders are, that's not saying all that much.

 

[FiveOClock]

You are great at personal insults! Now let's try something else - answer the question I asked. If you said that to a person who is responsible for deciding who gets to even try to become a doctor, what do you think the result would be?

Since academicians on the adcom magically know what makes the best doctors...

 

[atomi]

Sanders is a bum in a suit who lived off of welfare and didn't try getting a real job until he was 40 and utterly failed at that. He is idolized by idealistic college students who have never worked or paid taxes. He was broke his whole life and instead of trying to better himself and earn a decent living, he devoted the rest of his life to promoting socialist causes to try and punish those who accomplished what he did not. He is a loser who is supported by losers. Trump, even though he did inherit some money and could have lived the easy life, instead spent his entire life working very long days non-stop to build and create successful enterprises. The dichotomy is mind-boggling. A man with a lifetime of achievement running against an unskilled socialist. A winner vs. a loser. Luckily (or not) there is another character in play here: a crook, and what we will see is a winner vs. a crook. That will be interesting.

Eventually, even the intellectual elite that are still buying the media's campaign to smear Trump as a buffoon only supported by ignorant uneducated backwoods bigots will realize that he's actually a decent guy and that his platform is heads and shoulders better for our country than that of bum hellbent on punishing productivity and rewarding mediocrity and laziness in the name of redistributing privilege fairly. Or than that of a duplicitous criminal who would sell her own grandmother for a nickel.

To answer your question with another question, when you are an intern who took out massive student loans working 18 hour days 6 days a week, how are you going to feel knowing that when you finally get your first attending paycheck, it's going to be decimated in order to help support somebody who spent most of their life working part time at restaurants and smoking weed while taking 9 years to earn an associates degree in communications while accumulating debt they never had any attention of paying off?

 

[Petrichor1]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

Dude Healthcare is continously being mandated by team members with doctors being team members not leaders. You know the biggest reason for unhappy environment? Job dissatisfaction cause your nurse or assistant think they should earn more. It's always that dough especially if as doctors you earn the most in the team which means your kids incur debt or you have to pay for them for school. So why shouldnt you worry abt money when everyone else around you is bickering abt it? Noone is saying it has influence over the treatment u give to the poor vs rich. But u tell me how you would feel in today's time if you earn the same as the nurse that is assisting you while you do more work on call.... if I was a doctor, I'd want a simple pay for service system and I'd have 5 free services a day based on profit margin. Bonus for quality is great but I think that introduces to much bias and paperwork. What with all the governing bodies and certification tests, it's cruel to make a yelp for doctors.

 

[CherryRedDracul]

I think his assessment is accurate if we are strictly looking at salaries of high earners (physicians) and not anything else. Ultimately the president can't do much of anything to force these kinds of changes - the legislature has to do that - but it's no secret that Sanders has made his positions clear and the writing is on the wall. You may not agree with them socially or that their policies are the "best" for our society, but most Republicans will serve the interest of high earners when it comes to tax policies and advocate for social policies which do not require substantial expenditure, which affect the former.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other globally, but if we are strictly talking about allowing you to retain as much of your income as possible, Republicans > Democrats every day of the week and Sunday.

Welp, this is what happens when I forgot what this thread is about. I concede defeat.

 

[Law2Doc]

...

Here's the really odd thing: I'm a yellow-dog Democrat, but I'd vote for John Kasich over HRC!

Google the last episode of the last Samantha Bee "Full Frontal" TV show on this -- she does a pretty good job of showing that the supposed "moderate" Kasich is about as "moderate" as Cruz in terms of his political history on social issues and might actually be the most far right conservative of the bunch...

 

[Cavs5284]

Google the last episode of the last Samantha Bee "Full Frontal" TV show on this -- she does a pretty good job of showing that the supposed "moderate" Kasich is about as "moderate" as Cruz in terms of his political history on social issues and might actually be the most far right conservative of the bunch...

Samantha Bee is hardly a neutral source of political commentary.

John Kasich is definitely a conservative but, compared to the others, he has accepted that gay marriage is here to stay and he expanded medicare in his state under the Affordable Care Act, a move not popular with Republicans. With regards to abortion, most Americans do favor abortion being legal but most also favor restrictions. I don't think unrestricted late term abortions are popular with anyone besides the far left.

 

[dienekes88]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?



Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?


Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

Probably Bloomberg if he chooses to run.

Primarily because he is sensible, because nothing is worse for physicians than a bankrupt nation.. No doubt he would raise taxes, but look at our national debt. We need to improve the efficiency of our welfare state in addition to improving our cashflow. Who would be clever at doing something like that? Maybe someone who has done it as a mayor and as a company executive?

The problem with politics today is its tribal nature. People vote along party lines because of certain associations they want to reflect upon themselves.

Actually it's Cruz/Rubio who want to get rid of Obamacare -- they are the loyal republicans. Which is kind of funny since Obamacare borrowed heavily from Mitt Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program -- it was a Republican idea which Republicans only hate because the Democrats adopted it. It's unclear what Trump's real views are because, best I can tell, he's kind of saying whatever comes to his mind at the moment, good or bad. What is clear is he won't be a "good republican" and cow-tow to the party line, which perhaps leaves him open to other ideas. Or he might just let Dr Oz and Dr. Dre compete on TV to be our next Surgeon General -- who knows. He's a true wildcard.

Romneycare is a little more complicated than that, though I will admit it has been along time since I was last in Massachusetts. Of all the states in the nation, Massachusetts may have had the best chance of working, because of the number of physicians in the state. However, I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that spending has continue to go up and a lot of patients are on Medicaid. While coverage is up, it's clear to you, me, and everyone in Canada that "coverage" doesn't quite mean care.

Bernie will have doctors working for peanuts. He's the absolute worst option for anyone focused on their income. You can't earn a nice doctors salary giving out free care. However Hillary as First Lady was part of the administrative effort that put insurance companies and HMOs in charge of US health care and intentionally opted to not have any physicians on their steering committee (several nurses were invited in instead). So she apparently has the view that doctors are part of the problem, and that can't be good for us. The only saving grace is that she is fine with Obamacare, so we won't expect many drastic changes.

So basically no great options left for doctors. The loyal republicans are more likely to scrap Obamacare, HRC is most likely to keep things the same. And nobody really knows WTF Trump will do, including Trump.

Hardly a saving grace...

 

[Law2Doc]

Samantha Bee is hardly a neutral source of political commentary.

John Kasich is definitely a conservative but, compared to the others, he has accepted that gay marriage is here to stay and he expanded medicare in his state under the Affordable Care Act, a move not popular with Republicans. With regards to abortion, most Americans do favor abortion being legal but most also favor restrictions. I don't think unrestricted late term abortions are popular with anyone besides the far left.

Sure she's not neutral (no media is anymore) but even ignoring her narrative she's still showing clips of him as governor that prove he's not quite who he pretends to be. She directly addresses his supposed acceptance of same sex marriages showing that his words don't really match his actions / stances as governor. Bottom line, he's been extremely far right conservative in his actions (which don't really match up with everything he says now) and might be a better second choice after Cruz, not a moderate who should be appealing to a democrat who doesn't like Hillary.

 

[deleted731525]

Sure she's not neutral (no media is anymore) but even ignoring her narrative she's still showing clips of him as governor that prove he's not quite who he pretends to be. She directly addresses his supposed acceptance of same sex marriages showing that his words don't really match his actions / stances as governor. Bottom line, he's been extremely far right conservative in his actions (which don't really match up with everything he says now) and might be a better second choice after Cruz, not a moderate who should be appealing to a democrat who doesn't like Hillary.

Eh I think this election more than ever is going to be more about getting the bases to vote than sniping moderates and independents. the make up of the supreme court is at stake so there will be a lot of sky is falling talk on both sides. I know I am fed up with my party and would love to cast a protest vote in the general but this is not the year to do that.

 

[Mad Jack]

I am not sure if you forgot which way the alligator faces.

He had it right.

 

[Law2Doc]

... the make up of the supreme court is at stake so there will be a lot of sky is falling talk on both sides...

We already know the outcome. The republicans will unconstitutionally not allow Obama to appoint someone, then Trump will win, and will appoint Teller from Penn &Teller. Or maybe Gary Busey.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

While money isn't motivation 1-3, it's certainly in the top 5 for 90% of us. I would sooner leave medicine than do it for less than 200k a year. If you want the skills I worked my ass off to learn and sacrificed nearly a million dollars (I had a good career already, plus the loans) to master, you'd better be willing to pay me for them.

 

[Mad Jack]

Eh I think this election more than ever is going to be more about getting the bases to vote than sniping moderates and independents. the make up of the supreme court is at stake so there will be a lot of sky is falling talk on both sides. I know I am fed up with my party and would love to cast a protest vote in the general but this is not the year to do that.

Moderates/independents make up 42% of the voting public, while democrats make up a mere 24-26%, depending on the polls. Dems literally can't win without taking people from the middle.

 

[Brahnold]

We already know the outcome. The republicans will unconstitutionally not allow Obama to appoint someone, then Trump will win, and will appoint Teller from Penn &Teller. Or maybe Gary Busey.

Well, considering it's the constitution that grants the Senate power to block Supreme Court appointments, I'm not really sure how Senate Republicans can manage to block it "unconstitutionally." Are you predicting the Republicans will deliberately circumvent their constitutionally derived ability to block the appointment in favor of blocking it via some as of yet non-existent, unconstitutional method? Or are you just trying to say that you don't like Republicans

 

[Law2Doc]

...Are you predicting the Republicans will deliberately circumvent their constitutionally derived ability to block the appointment in favor of blocking it via some as of yet non-existent, unconstitutional method? Or are you just trying to say that you don't like Republicans

Right now, at this very moment, the Republicans have taken the position that a lame duck president in his last year of office should not even be allowed to appoint a nominee. That's not a prediction -- it's happening right now. Mitch McConnel has publicly stated that it doesn't matter who Obama nominates they aren't going to consider it. And yes that's unconstitutional. A refusal to consider a nominee is a refusal to do their job under our constitution. They can refuse a particular nominee for particular reasons, and should, but if it's a blanket refusal even without a hearing, and not acting in good faith, they are not within the scope of our constitution, and even republican legal scholars (Sandra Day OConnor, etc) would tell you the same. It's a bit sickening because there are people holding office who find it more important to be a good Republican Party member (a group not mentioned in our constitution or elevated to any role by our founding fathers, BTW) rather than to serve their role as a good American and elected official. I am not an Obama fan but I want the guys we elected to get to do the job we elected them for -- the US public overwhelmingly elected Obama for 8 years and nobody gave the republicans the right to cut it down to 7. Hopefully this will backfire and these idiots who don't apply the laws of our country when it doesn't suit them will get thrown out. Or better yet Trump will destroy their party.

 

[Baller MD]

Moderates/independents make up 42% of the voting public, while democrats make up a mere 24-26%, depending on the polls. Dems literally can't win without taking people from the middle.

I'm curious, where did you get that percentage from?

 

[Brahnold]

Right now, at this very moment, the Republicans have taken the position that a lame duck president in his last year of office should not be allowed to appoint a nominee. That's not a prediction -- it's happening right now. And it's unconstitutional.

That's just political posturing, which doesn't fall under the definition of being constitutional or unconstitutional. Only laws or actions can merit that distinction. It's not unconstitutional to say "I'm going to take your guns." It's unconstitutional to actually pass a law to that effect. Likewise, the Republicans can say whatever they want on the topic of lame duck presidents not being allowed to appoint SC justices. Luckily for them, they can also block said appointments through their control of the senate, which is entirely constitutional, since the constitution gives the senate final authority on approval of SC nominees. But all this is neither here nor there in regards to the OP, so I'll cease and desist on this topic.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm curious, where did you get that percentage from?

The most recent polling data has democrats at 29%, however, not 26%. Basically, no party can win by merely rallying their base.

 

[jtm0021]

Gary Johnson.

 

[Law2Doc]

That's just political posturing, which doesn't fall under the definition of being constitutional or unconstitutional. Only laws or actions can merit that distinction. It's not unconstitutional to say "I'm going to take your guns." It's unconstitutional to actually pass a law...

Actually political posturing under the law can absolutely be a breach of duty and be unconstitutional. A law enforcement official telling a suspect "you have no rights" can't later just read him a Miranda warning and be back within the constitution. Cases like that get dismissed. Posturing doesn't work that way -- if you have a duty and make clear you will not follow that duty you have just breached your duties.

 

[Law2Doc]

The most recent polling data has democrats at 29%, however, not 26%. Basically, no party can win by merely rallying their base.

as we saw from the last couple of elections the hard right republicans aren't very able to rally their base around so called party loyalists, and based on the traction trump is getting their base isn't really on the same page.

 

[Brahnold]

Fair enough, I will admit to having only a layman's understanding of constitutionality, so I'll defer to your legal training.

 

[deleted731525]

Moderates/independents make up 42% of the voting public, while democrats make up a mere 24-26%, depending on the polls. Dems literally can't win without taking people from the middle.

A lot of "moderates" are people who are republicans/democrats who like to make themselves seem impartial. Their votes aren't actually going to go against party lines

 

[Mad Jack]

A lot of "moderates" are people who are republicans/democrats who like to make themselves seem impartial. Their votes aren't actually going to go against party lines

Most independents are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but have a preference for either the fiscal or social side that makes them lead toward one party or the other. If this election makes them choose between a very fiscally/socially liberal and a very fiscally/socially conservative candidate, there's no telling how it will go, as the fiscal side of things might overwhelm social concerns or vice versa.

 

[Med Ed]

Most independents are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but have a preference for either the fiscal or social side that makes them lead toward one party or the other. If this election makes them choose between a very fiscally/socially liberal and a very fiscally/socially conservative candidate, there's no telling how it will go, as the fiscal side of things might overwhelm social concerns or vice versa.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, with the exception of a brief spell in the late 90's, the national level Republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative since the 1970's. Let us not forget that the national debt tripled under Reagan. The major distinction between parties is where they choose to spend their deficit dollars (i.e. military vs. infrastructure).

 

[Mad Jack]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, with the exception of a brief spell in the late 90's, the national level Republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative since the 1970's. Let us not forget that the national debt tripled under Reagan. The major distinction between parties is where they choose to spend their deficit dollars (i.e. military vs. infrastructure).

They actually would spend less money overall than the democrats if allowed to their own devices- ending SS and Medicare, ending a lot of social programs, etc. Military spending would never be enough to keep up with those cuts lol. Plus they're all about cutting taxes on people at the top and for corporations, so even if the deficit grows, a lot of people aren't feeling it.

 

[Seth Joo]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?



Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?


Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

The upside of Sanders is that education will be free so new graduates will have little or no debt. Even that being said, I doubt any of the Presidents will have much impact on physician compensation. The President is not a dictator.

I knew a Canadian in my class whose cousin graduated several years ago from a medical school in Canada and asked her how long it took her cousin to take to pay off his debt, she said 3 years.

 

[Stagg737]

The upside of Sanders is that education will be free so new graduates will have little or no debt. Even that being said, I doubt any of the Presidents will have much impact on physician compensation. The President is not a dictator.

I knew a Canadian in my class whose cousin graduated several years ago from a medical school in Canada and asked her how long it took her cousin to take to pay off his debt, she said 3 years.

I think there's a lot of people that would have far less of a problem making a little less money if they graduated with little to no debt. The problem is that medical education won't be free, so introducing a plan which slashes physician compensation isn't going to go over well with anyone unless they also forgive everyone's current and past debts...

 

[Med Ed]

They actually would spend less money overall than the democrats if allowed to their own devices- ending SS and Medicare, ending a lot of social programs, etc.

Considering the demographics of the Republican base, the party has zero interest in ending SS or Medicare. It would, however, like to privatize those programs.

 

[Brahnold]

The upside of Sanders is that education will be free so new graduates will have little or no debt. Even that being said, I doubt any of the Presidents will have much impact on physician compensation. The President is not a dictator.

I knew a Canadian in my class whose cousin graduated several years ago from a medical school in Canada and asked her how long it took her cousin to take to pay off his debt, she said 3 years.

Great, so anyone who goes to school after Communist is elected will have a "free" education.

Oh, are you one of those suckers who stupidly decided to go to school before the Communist's ascension? Sucky for you, someone is going to have to pay for the "free" education, so you'll be paying back your student loans with paychecks decimated by Communist's taxes. Making college education "free" shifts the burden of tuition from students to taxpayers, so you'd basically be paying your own tuition via your student loans and the tuition of the college students who enrolled right after you. Serves you right you dummy, should have waited for Sanders!

But hey, at least by making college "free," we'll increase the number of college grads and raise the college grad unemployment/underemployment rate from today's unacceptably low 22%.
Winning! Bernie's got Tiger Blood.

 

[Mad Jack]

Considering the demographics of the Republican base, the party has zero interest in ending SS or Medicare. It would, however, like to privatize those programs.

They would love to end them moving forward- no government Medicare or SS for those under, say, 55 would probably be ideal to them.

It's also something I'd be fine with, so long as we replaced it with fully tax-free private options that were paid for by citizens coupled with a phase-out of Medicare/SS benefits for those that had already paid their way into the system.

 

[Med Ed]

They would love to end them moving forward- no government Medicare or SS for those under, say, 55 would probably be ideal to them.

It's also something I'd be fine with, so long as we replaced it with fully tax-free private options that were paid for by citizens coupled with a phase-out of Medicare/SS benefits for those that had already paid their way into the system.

You have just described the privatization of those programs. Glad we could agree.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think there's a lot of people that would have far less of a problem making a little less money if they graduated with little to no debt...

Nobody is offering that, so it's odd to me that people on SDN keep saying "I wouldn't mind earning less if I didn't need to incur so much debt." You are forgoing a decade of income on this medical route, so to attract good people, the salary is always going to be at at least a certain level regardless of the cost to enter.

 

[Seth Joo]

I think there's a lot of people that would have far less of a problem making a little less money if they graduated with little to no debt. The problem is that medical education won't be free, so introducing a plan which slashes physician compensation isn't going to go over well with anyone unless they also forgive everyone's current and past debts...

Its probably never going to happen, at least not in the US anyway. In the countries with single payer health care medical education is inexpensive or free, and has been that way for years.

 

[DrMason]

Simple answer: Every presidential candidate except Trump is in favor of Obamacare. No single thing will destroy incomes and living s of physicians more than that.

DT is not perfect, just MUCH LESS IMPERFECT than the professional liars on the stage. Sanders is just another doctor hating leftist that think we should just be servile, discredited, penniless *****, IMHO. HE11ary the same.

The guy we have now is telling us that doctors take kids tonsils out to make more money than simply treating it with antibiotics.

Trump deserves a chance. All the blowing of politicians our lobby groups have done, has given nothing except the perception that we are well-connected with lobbyists. Politicians will appoint an ARNP for surgeon general before they take our monetary complaints seriously.

I would never join into a compensation mode based upon my patients doing nothing and I being blamed for it. The HbA1C hall of shames in corporate groups is just as pathetic as the "audits" to see if you have everybody on ASA or not and then ask you why not every time. You can only reply so many times with "Read the chart you fu***** parasite incompetent clown", before they break down and cry and people say how "insensitive" you are.

 

[Stagg737]

Nobody is offering that, so it's odd to me that people on SDN keep saying "I wouldn't mind earning less if I didn't need to incur so much debt." You are forgoing a decade of income on this medical route, so to attract good people, the salary is always going to be at at least a certain level regardless of the cost to enter.

Never said anyone was offering no debt for less pay, just that it would obviously be more accepted than creating a system where physicians salaries plummet while school costs stay the same. I agree that physician salary will always be good compared to the national average, just more concerned how good it will be for individuals accruing 200 or 300k+ in loans...

 

[Seth Joo]

Never said anyone was offering no debt for less pay, just that it would obviously be more accepted than creating a system where physicians salaries plummet while school costs stay the same. I agree that physician salary will always be good compared to the national average, just more concerned how good it will be for individuals accruing 200 or 300k+ in loans...

If there was a system where salaries plummet while the cost of becoming a doctor keeps going up, my guess would be that fewer people would then want to become physicians. Then again I could be wrong, my school's COA for 2016 is double that of 2006, the average primary care doctor salary is only slightly higher today, but the applicant statistics for my school are much higher today.

 

[Stagg737]

If there was a system where salaries plummet while the cost of becoming a doctor keeps going up, my guess would be that fewer people would then want to become physicians.

Which is obvious to those already in the profession, but there are also a lot of financially naive pre-meds. Combine that with growing numbers of applicants and who knows what the bureaucrats in DC will do...

 

[Seth Joo]

Which is obvious to those already in the profession, but there are also a lot of financially naive pre-meds. Combine that with growing numbers of applicants and who knows what the bureaucrats in DC will do...

The reason why my school keeps getting applicants probably has to do with the different economic situation in 2006 vs 2016, the job outlook for the class of 2006 was much better. Also DOs are more accepted as physicians today than they were in 2006 and also many graduates are trying to avoid the real world and going to graduate school.

Physician salaries have not changed much in 10 years, they have not plummeted but they sure have not made up for the increased cost of education.

 

[Cello]

It would be great to see some coherent arguments offered up over why Republicans are better for wealthy Americans, while Democrats are worse. Last I checked, the wealthiest Americans (who are not physicians by the way) saw a $1 trillion gain in total assets under the Obama administration. http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/07/us-billionaires-gain-nearly-1-trillion-in-bull-market.html

Also, with regard to healthcare, Obama makes a perfectly valid point. Where is the alternative plan? Premiums were rising much faster than inflation and Medicare reimbursement rates were dropping rapidly BEFORE ACA came along. With 18% of GDP and rising going towards healthcare, something had to be done. Everyone may disagree with what the current President offered, but what is your alternative? For all of the folks claiming that physicians get paid peanuts when the government gets involved in medicine, or that it simply can't be done, have you taken a look at the world lately? We are the last holdout among major industrialized nations. The Netherlands somehow manages to maintain the best healthcare system in Europe, and they pay their physicians more on average than even the United States.

You folks who keep attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters, what is your argument exactly? The man wants to tax the billionaire class. Are you planning to become a billionaire doctor? We are so concerned with protecting the wealth of billionaires at the expense of the working poor, it makes me wonder where that behavior is learned in this society. You can say whatever you want against poor people making minimum wage, but don't you dare challenge the notion that a billionaire deserves every cent they have! This is America where we measure our success by the number of billionaires we produce!

Bernie isn't after you frankly, you're not rich enough and you never will be. He is after people making $10,000,000+ per year (seriously, look at his tax plan if you don't believe me). As far as Hillary goes, who cares if she supports ACA? She tried to push something similar through Congress in 1993 when she was 1st Lady and failed because the healthcare cabal has far too much influence in Washington politics. What ought to piss people off is the fact that the major health and pharma lobbies have traditionally had enough power to prevent any change at all to the system which fattens their wallets at the expense of patients and healthcare providers.

To the folks who like Donald Trump because he would end universal healthcare coverage...



"Everyone needs to be covered . . . this is un-Republican of me . . . the government would pay for it." @atomi

Poor people can't afford to see the doctor. Poor people on government assistance can't afford to pay much to see the doctor. You want to be compensated well for your services? You're better off in a nation where the people who produce the goods and services we use/consume make a fair wage for their work instead of passing higher efficiency and reduced costs of production on to line the pockets of company executives.

And finally, for everyone who may be voting Trump because they deem Bernie to be a disaster for physicians and healthcare; here's a quote from Trump while on Letterman:

Letterman: "Fraud and abuse, can you produce some paperwork to prove that there's fraud and abuse?"
Trump: "Just look at your doctors bills. I mean you look at what some of these doctors bills, you look at what these doctors do, and some of the money that they make. You go to other countries and you see what they make and it's a whole different world!" @DrMason

 

[Seth Joo]

It would be great to see some coherent arguments offered up over why Republicans are better for wealthy Americans, while Democrats are worse. Last I checked, the wealthiest Americans (who are not physicians by the way) saw a $1 trillion gain in total assets under the Obama administration. http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/07/us-billionaires-gain-nearly-1-trillion-in-bull-market.html

Also, with regard to healthcare, Obama makes a perfectly valid point. Where is the alternative plan? Premiums were rising much faster than inflation and Medicare reimbursement rates were dropping rapidly BEFORE ACA came along. With 18% of GDP and rising going towards healthcare, something had to be done. Everyone may disagree with what the current President offered, but what is your alternative? For all of the folks claiming that physicians get paid peanuts when the government gets involved in medicine, or that it simply can't be done, have you taken a look at the world lately? We are the last holdout among major industrialized nations. The Netherlands somehow manages to maintain the best healthcare system in Europe, and they pay their physicians more on average than even the United States.

You folks who keep attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters, what is your argument exactly? The man wants to tax the billionaire class. Are you planning to become a billionaire doctor? We are so concerned with protecting the wealth of billionaires at the expense of the working poor, it makes me wonder where that behavior is learned in this society. You can say whatever you want against poor people making minimum wage, but don't you dare challenge the notion that a billionaire deserves every cent they have! This is America where we measure our success by the number of billionaires we produce!

Bernie isn't after you frankly, you're not rich enough and you never will be. He is after people making $10,000,000+ per year (seriously, look at his tax plan if you don't believe me). As far as Hillary goes, who cares if she supports ACA? She tried to push something similar through Congress in 1993 when she was 1st Lady and failed because the healthcare cabal has far too much influence in Washington politics. What ought to piss people off is the fact that the major health and pharma lobbies have traditionally had enough power to prevent any change at all to the system which fattens their wallets at the expense of patients and healthcare providers.

To the folks who like Donald Trump because he would end universal healthcare coverage...



"Everyone needs to be covered . . . this is un-Republican of me . . . the government would for it."

Poor people can't afford to see the doctor. Poor people on government assistance can't afford to pay much to see the doctor. You want to be compensated well for your services? You're better off in a nation where the people who produce the goods and services we use/consume make a fair wage for their work instead of passing higher efficiency and reduced costs of production on to line the pockets of company executives.

The cold hard reality is that both parties, Republican and Democrat, could not care less about the Middle Class in this country, they both sold the Middle Class down the river. NAFTA was the first step, the next one will be the TPP which will be even worse.

 

[kmp0410]

Gary Johnson.

And a tottenham badge?

 

[Cello]

The cold hard reality is that both parties, Republican and Democrat, could not care less about the Middle Class in this country, they both sold the Middle Class down the river. NAFTA was the first step, the next one will be the TPP which will be even worse.

Personally, I think that's a tad cynical. One reason I like Bernie is that I believe the man stands for something and that he really does want to revive the American middle class, which by the way, the vast majority of physicians belong to.

Sanders is a bum in a suit who lived off of welfare and didn't try getting a real job until he was 40 and utterly failed at that. He is idolized by idealistic college students who have never worked or paid taxes. He was broke his whole life and instead of trying to better himself and earn a decent living, he devoted the rest of his life to promoting socialist causes to try and punish those who accomplished what he did not. He is a loser who is supported by losers. Trump, even though he did inherit some money and could have lived the easy life, instead spent his entire life working very long days non-stop to build and create successful enterprises. The dichotomy is mind-boggling. A man with a lifetime of achievement running against an unskilled socialist. A winner vs. a loser. Luckily (or not) there is another character in play here: a crook, and what we will see is a winner vs. a crook. That will be interesting.

Eventually, even the intellectual elite that are still buying the media's campaign to smear Trump as a buffoon only supported by ignorant uneducated backwoods bigots will realize that he's actually a decent guy and that his platform is heads and shoulders better for our country than that of bum hellbent on punishing productivity and rewarding mediocrity and laziness in the name of redistributing privilege fairly. Or than that of a duplicitous criminal who would sell her own grandmother for a nickel.

To answer your question with another question, when you are an intern who took out massive student loans working 18 hour days 6 days a week, how are you going to feel knowing that when you finally get your first attending paycheck, it's going to be decimated in order to help support somebody who spent most of their life working part time at restaurants and smoking weed while taking 9 years to earn an associates degree in communications while accumulating debt they never had any attention of paying off?

This post is simply outrageous. He lived off of welfare until he was 40? Care to provide a source? Some proof?

The man is a US Senator and former mayor who won on an independent ticket, but he's a loser? What a joke. I am hopeful as I read your post that I'll find some sign that you are being facetious, but you seem to be completely serious. I don't know what concerns me more: that you posted this dreck, or that 12 people liked it. It's like we're on the comments section of Yahoo news.

I pay taxes, and I work. In fact, I have run my own business and worked for the last 10 years. I support Bernie. And if you think his campaign is about punishing people, then it's likely because you think you are one of those people. Again I'll say this. You're not, and you probably never will be. You will make good money as a physician, but you will almost certainly never be the kind of rich that Bernie refers to: the billionaire class, not professionals who are merely the upper end of middle class. Your claim that your "first attending paycheck will be decimated" is flat out false. Remember when people like you were claiming that Obama was going to raise your taxes and take your guns? Are you still waiting around for that to happen?

As to your claims about Trump. The man is lucky. He is no Warren Buffet, he did not create glistening billions by taking wise risks and/or making prudent business decisions. Furthermore, he has defrauded investors out of billions by taking advantage of existing US bankruptcy laws. It is easy to take risks with other people's money, but that doesn't make you a good businessman. In fact, the man has used bankruptcy to his advantage on four separate occasions. He is such a poor businessman that he would have been better off if he had simply invested his father's money and let the interest accrue. As things are now, he has shorted himself $10 billion simply by touching his inheritance. And how exactly does that qualify him for president? You are aware I hope that being president is mostly about things other than the economy.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Stop worshiping rich people, they don't care about you. Also, please learn more about socialism. You, like the rest of the general electorate, haven't got a clue.

 

[deleted731525]

If there was a system where salaries plummet while the cost of becoming a doctor keeps going up, my guess would be that fewer people would then want to become physicians. Then again I could be wrong, my school's COA for 2016 is double that of 2006, the average primary care doctor salary is only slightly higher today, but the applicant statistics for my school are much higher today.

The problem is that other opportunities outside of tech are worse.

 

[Baller MD]

Personally, I think that's a tad cynical. One reason I like Bernie is that I believe the man stands for something and that he really does want to revive the American middle class, which by the way, the vast majority of physicians belong to.




This post is simply outrageous. He lived off of welfare until he was 40? Care to provide a source? Some proof?

The man is a US Senator and former mayor who won on an independent ticket, but he's a loser? What a joke. I am hopeful as I read your post that I'll find some sign that you are being facetious, but you seem to be completely serious. I don't know what concerns me more: that you posted this dreck, or that 12 people liked it. It's like we're on the comments section of Yahoo news.

I pay taxes, and I work. In fact, I have run my own business and worked for the last 10 years. I support Bernie. And if you think his campaign is about punishing people, then it's likely because you think you are one of those people. Again I'll say this. You're not, and you never will be. You will make good money as a physician, but you will never be rich. The kind of wealth Sanders is after is the billionaire class, not professionals who are merely the upper end of middle class. Your claim that your "first attending paycheck will be decimated" is flat out false. Remember when people like you were claiming that Obama was going to raise your taxes and take your guns? Are you still waiting around for that to happen?

As to your claims about Trump. The man is lucky. He is no Warren Buffet, he did not create glistening billions by taking wise risks and/or making prudent business decisions. Furthermore, he has defrauded investors out of billions by taking advantage of existing US bankruptcy laws. It is easy to take risks with other people's money, but that doesn't make you a good businessman. In fact, the man has used bankruptcy to his advantage on four separate occasions. He is such a poor businessman that he would have been better if he had simply invested his father's money and let the interest accrue. As things are now, he has shorted himself $10 billion simply by

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Stop worshiping rich people, they don't care about you. Also, please learn more about socialism. You, like the rest of the general electorate, haven't got a clue.

According to this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-taxes/ Salaries in a typical physician range would get taxed more...

 

[Seth Joo]

Personally, I think that's a tad cynical. One reason I like Bernie is that I believe the man stands for something and that he really does want to revive the American middle class, which by the way, the vast majority of physicians belong to.




This post is simply outrageous. He lived off of welfare until he was 40? Care to provide a source? Some proof?

The man is a US Senator and former mayor who won on an independent ticket, but he's a loser? What a joke. I am hopeful as I read your post that I'll find some sign that you are being facetious, but you seem to be completely serious. I don't know what concerns me more: that you posted this dreck, or that 12 people liked it. It's like we're on the comments section of Yahoo news.

I pay taxes, and I work. In fact, I have run my own business and worked for the last 10 years. I support Bernie. And if you think his campaign is about punishing people, then it's likely because you think you are one of those people. Again I'll say this. You're not, and you never will be. You will make good money as a physician, but you will never be rich. The kind of wealth Sanders is after is the billionaire class, not professionals who are merely the upper end of middle class. Your claim that your "first attending paycheck will be decimated" is flat out false. Remember when people like you were claiming that Obama was going to raise your taxes and take your guns? Are you still waiting around for that to happen?

As to your claims about Trump. The man is lucky. He is no Warren Buffet, he did not create glistening billions by taking wise risks and/or making prudent business decisions. Furthermore, he has defrauded investors out of billions by taking advantage of existing US bankruptcy laws. It is easy to take risks with other people's money, but that doesn't make you a good businessman. In fact, the man has used bankruptcy to his advantage on four separate occasions. He is such a poor businessman that he would have been better if he had simply invested his father's money and let the interest accrue. As things are now, he has shorted himself $10 billion simply by

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Stop worshiping rich people, they don't care about you. Also, please learn more about socialism. You, like the rest of the general electorate, haven't got a clue.

Bernie only recently put himself on the Democratic ticket because he needs to associate himself with a major party to become President, most of his life he has been a Socialist. He has hosed Clinton, both Hillary and Bill, and has seen Clinton's policies during the 1990s as gutting the middle and working classes in this country. He is not a mainstream Democrat.

As far as Trump is concerned, I really just see an egotistical megalomaniac that wants to become President, he does have a point that the establishment cares little about the masses.

Even Robert Reich, who called Trump a "buffoon" recently penned a piece about the rise of non-establishment candidates like Sanders and Trump, thought it was interesting because Reich had a very low opinion of Trump.

 

[Cello]

According to this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-taxes/ Salaries in a typical physician range would get taxed more...

Here is a clear breakdown of Sanders' tax proposals, and how they will affect the economy.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

The increase is not significant and certainly doesn't justify the kind of ridiculous posts we've seen in this thread.

Bernie only recently put himself on the Democratic ticket because he needs to associate himself with a major party to become President, most of his life he has been a Socialist. He has hosed Clinton, both Hillary and Bill, and has seen Clinton's policies during the 1990s as gutting the middle and working classes in this country. He is not a mainstream Democrat.

As far as Trump is concerned, I really just see an egotistical megalomaniac that wants to become President, he does have a point that the establishment cares little about the masses.

Even Robert Reich, who called Trump a "buffoon" recently penned a piece about the rise of non-establishment candidates like Sanders and Trump, thought it was interesting because Reich had a very low opinion of Trump.

Reich is a big Sanders supporter, despite having served on the Clinton admin. Also, I am aware that Sanders was independent, I mentioned that in one of my responses above.