Physician Salaries - below 100K

[OnDemond]

I don't know. Honestly, sometimes I get the feeling docs are treated like the flies on govt. radar and gluttonous stepchildren by the patient population.

I'm sorry. I don't get it. Doctors are the ones with the knowledge base and the education. Doctors are the ones with the licenses. Doctors are the ones who go through extensive training to perfrom procedures, who diagnose, treat, and notice the clinical issues that start the ball rolling in the direction of necessary new research and technology.

Why is it ok for star football players and members of Congress to rake in trillions of dollars, while we can't even control our own fate despite all the **** we go through in training and the debt we incur to HELP PEOPLE instead of throwing a pigskin or BS rhetoric around?!

We as future docs HAVE TO take control of where our future is going to go. I wonder how significant all these players in the healthcare game would feel if docs just dropped their scalpels and refused to put up with crap. The problem is that compassion is often taken for granted.

Amen, brother!! (sister?)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[45408]

I think you're the first person I've ever heard suggest that "routine" vaginal deliveries shouldn't be covered by health insurance.

I suggested it to my wife last week. Think about it - it's EXPECTED. When you get home insurance, do you EXPECT to burn your house down? No, and neither do they, so you pay a premium cost that is much lower than the cost of replacing your home. Your health insurance expects that you will have children, get sick, and die, so you're basically paying into a large savings pot that you'll eventually dip into. Except that the insurance company will have already dipped into it to pay all of their employees and executives and shareholders.

My wife pays over $2500 a year in insurance premiums, and her employer pays something like an additional $6000 a year. Guess how much a routine vaginal delivery costs? Less than $8500. Medicaid pays $5500 in this state for all of the pre-natal care and costs associated with a delivery. My dad's current health insurance is over $60,000 in premiums per year (because he has cancer, and his premiums soared). That's like 10 babies.

It would make more sense to have a high-deductible insurance policy that you will probably never use, and to put aside your own money into a health savings plan (not the current HSA) to use at your own discretion.

 

[45408]

Well, I'm glad I'm unique. I don't understand how a routine delivery really qualifies as a risk though. To me this is the equivalent of including the cost of tire replacement in your car insurance.

I completely agree. If your home insurance covers routine furnace/roof/window/door replacement, then your premiums will increase to cover the cost as well as the additional profit for the insurance company. Your choice.

 

[Substance]

I suggested it to my wife last week. Think about it - it's EXPECTED. When you get home insurance, do you EXPECT to burn your house down? No, and neither do they, so you pay a premium cost that is much lower than the cost of replacing your home. Your health insurance expects that you will have children, get sick, and die, so you're basically paying into a large savings pot that you'll eventually dip into. Except that the insurance company will have already dipped into it to pay all of their employees and executives and shareholders.

My wife pays over $2500 a year in insurance premiums, and her employer pays something like an additional $6000 a year. Guess how much a routine vaginal delivery costs? Less than $8500. Medicaid pays $5500 in this state for all of the pre-natal care and costs associated with a delivery. My dad's current health insurance is over $60,000 in premiums per year (because he has cancer, and his premiums soared). That's like 10 babies.

It would make more sense to have a high-deductible insurance policy that you will probably never use, and to put aside your own money into a health savings plan (not the current HSA) to use at your own discretion.

This is why health care payment via insurance is wasteful and inefficient. A completely capitalistic model(the US model isn't capitalist) would be less costly and more efficient. Essentially, pay for what you use. If you don't use it, you don't pay.

I also agree with whomever said that physicians should strike. Nurses can strike. Physicians should be legally allowed to do the same. We cannot set our own prices within medicare/medicaid, where the majority of our time is needed. Thusly, we are employees of the insurance companies.

 

[turkeyjerky]

I suggested it to my wife last week. Think about it - it's EXPECTED. When you get home insurance, do you EXPECT to burn your house down? No, and neither do they, so you pay a premium cost that is much lower than the cost of replacing your home. Your health insurance expects that you will have children, get sick, and die, so you're basically paying into a large savings pot that you'll eventually dip into. Except that the insurance company will have already dipped into it to pay all of their employees and executives and shareholders.

My wife pays over $2500 a year in insurance premiums, and her employer pays something like an additional $6000 a year. Guess how much a routine vaginal delivery costs? Less than $8500. Medicaid pays $5500 in this state for all of the pre-natal care and costs associated with a delivery. My dad's current health insurance is over $60,000 in premiums per year (because he has cancer, and his premiums soared). That's like 10 babies.

It would make more sense to have a high-deductible insurance policy that you will probably never use, and to put aside your own money into a health savings plan (not the current HSA) to use at your own discretion.

You make a great argument for single-payer...

But you don't think that society has a vested interest in insuring the safety of childbirth for all women? I'd gladly throw down my share of the pot for the payment of other people's deliveries.

Then again, maybe you don't believe in public education, either.

 

[Mace1370]

You make a great argument for single-payer...

But you don't think that society has a vested interest in insuring the safety of childbirth for all women? I'd gladly throw down my share of the pot for the payment of other people's deliveries.

Then again, maybe you don't believe in public education, either.

You can pay for whatever you want. I should have the right to pay for whatever I want.

Health care isn't a right, and one point that is so rarely brought up in this debate is that it should be perfectly acceptable for not everyone to have health insurance.

If you can't afford to sustain yourself, why should other's waste even more money keeping you alive and well?

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

If someone feels that as a physician they shouldn't make more than 100k, then by all means, please donate your excess salary to charity.

However, do not tell the rest of us what we should/should not make. Profit, done right, can be an excellent motivator for competition and cost.

BTW, my name is Charity....

 

[cgscribe]

You can pay for whatever you want. I should have the right to pay for whatever I want.

Health care isn't a right, and one point that is so rarely brought up in this debate is that it should be perfectly acceptable for not everyone to have health insurance.

If you can't afford to sustain yourself, why should other's waste even more money keeping you alive and well?

--I'm not going to go as fringe as this one, but the underlying concept I like: there is a difference between healthcare as a right (which is being championed) and healthcare as a privilege. Services like well-checks, BP and DM management, referrals to addiction and psych illness clinics, and prenatal screening/births (although, I definitely see the merits to the previous posts about this being covered or not)- I feel should be covered, if anything. The idea that people deserve all aspects of modern medicine, simply for being in this country, is a little bothersome to me- and the idea that the American public wants the same level of care in a universal system without any trade-offs, is even more so.

 

[Mace1370]

--I'm not going to go as fringe as this one, but the underlying concept I like: there is a difference between healthcare as a right (which is being championed) and healthcare as a privilege. Services like well-checks, BP and DM management, referrals to addiction and psych illness clinics, and prenatal screening/births (although, I definitely see the merits to the previous posts about this being covered or not)- I feel should be covered, if anything. The idea that people deserve all aspects of modern medicine, simply for being in this country, is a little bothersome to me- and the idea that the American public wants the same level of care in a universal system without any trade-offs, is even more so.

Then how do you determine what medical benefits people have a right to (shouldn't be paid for) and what benefits they have to earn on their own?

 

[cgscribe]

Then how do you determine what medical benefits people have a right to (shouldn't be paid for) and what benefits they have to earn on their own?

In an ideal world, a panel of like-minded economists/physicians (read: non-politicians) + piles of outcomes research, etc. There would be no perfect solution to this hypothetical scenario.

 

[45408]

You make a great argument for single-payer...

But you don't think that society has a vested interest in insuring the safety of childbirth for all women? I'd gladly throw down my share of the pot for the payment of other people's deliveries.

I never said that. I despise that women (and men) will keep having children when they can't afford them, but the solution is not to punish the children. I acknowledge that a low-income option would be an important part of the plan.

I also am not arguing for a single payer system, because I like to retain a lot more personal involvement, choice and responsibility in the system. However, I think a single payer system would be better than what's currently on the table.

Then again, maybe you don't believe in public education, either.

I don't believe in the God-awful Dept of Education, but I went to a public university and strongly support keeping them around (at a STATE level).

 

[Mace1370]

In an ideal world, a panel of like-minded economists/physicians (read: non-politicians) + piles of outcomes research, etc. There would be no perfect solution to this hypothetical scenario.

I didn't mean in a logistical sense. I meant what set of criteria would you use to determine which procedures patients shouldn't have to pay for?

For example, you gave a list of several procedures (births, etc). How did you come up with that list?

 

[turkeyjerky]

Then how do you determine what medical benefits people have a right to (shouldn't be paid for) and what benefits they have to earn on their own?

At a minimum, I think most reasonable people would agree that any preventative care that both saves money and improves outcomes should be covered.

Edit: Of course, some people would have you belive that any research actually looking at this would put us on the road to automatic euthanesia at age 65 and having Obama inaugurated as "president for life".

 

[Mace1370]

At a minimum, I think most reasonable people would agree that any preventative care that both saves money and improves outcomes should be covered.

Edit: Of course, some people would have you belive that any research actually looking at this would put us on the road to automatic euthanesia at age 65 and having Obama inaugurated as "president for life".

Why those procedures, specifically?

 

[turkeyjerky]

I never said that. I despise that women (and men) will keep having children when they can't afford them, but the solution is not to punish the children. I acknowledge that a low-income option would be an important part of the plan.

I also am not arguing for a single payer system, because I like to retain a lot more personal involvement, choice and responsibility in the system. However, I think a single payer system would be better than what's currently on the table.


I don't believe in the God-awful Dept of Education, but I went to a public university and strongly support keeping them around (at a STATE level).

I know you didn't say that, but you unwittingly made a great argument for it.

I'm confused though, are you talking about choice in health care or choice in health insurance? The two aren't the same. Old people might not have very much choice in terms of health insurance, but they have great choice in terms of health care (a given person w/ medicare has much more choice than someone enrolled in an hmo, for instance).

Personally, I don't give a flying f[]ck about the structure of my health plan, as long as I'm able to get the care that I want and need (I do, however, desire a great deal of choice in the actual care I receive). I think most people would agree with me.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Why those procedures, specifically?

Think about it for a second

 

[womp]

Could you imagine a pharmacist at CVS making more than you as a doctor?

Here's what I don't get, no one bi*ches about the 6-figure salaries that pharmacists pull in for counting pills, but it's cool to hate on doctors.

Entry-level corporate lawyers get $160,000 and bill $600 an hour. No one cares.

 

[Mace1370]

Think about it for a second

Well I know how I could justify it, but I'm asking how you would because you are the one who said they should be covered.

People keep saying, "I think X, Y, and Z should be free for everyone."

I ask, "Why X,Y, and Z?" and people are responding with "Because X, Y, and Z should be covered."

No one has answered why yet.

 

[45408]

At a minimum, I think most reasonable people would agree that any preventative care that both saves money and improves outcomes should be covered.

Preventative care doesn't save money. It's actually more expensive. It's better for your health, but it comes at a cost. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/h...ml?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

And why would I agree that it should be covered? My car insurance doesn't cover preventative care for my car, nor do I want it to.

 

[45408]

I know you didn't say that, but you unwittingly made a great argument for it.

The "I never said that" was in reference to leaving pregnant women out to dry if they couldn't afford care.

I didn't unwittingly make any arguments. I'm aware of the merits of a single payer system.

 

[AlexMD]

Guys,
don't dwell on statistics much. Income in different specialties are so unpredictable. I know anesthesiologists making 220k and psychiatrists making over 600k
It depends on hours, settings etc. If u r in private practice, use all modern systems (EMR, e-scripts, etc), don't use dino age services such as answ.service and billing person, keep your overhead low, you can make few hundred thousand a year more just by saving on unnecessary things.
I am telling you this based on my own experience. You can start your own practice, work decent hours, make your patient happy and swim in cash

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

Guys,
don't dwell on statistics much. Income in different specialties are so unpredictable. I know anesthesiologists making 220k and psychiatrists making over 600k
I

So add a standard deviation next to the mean. Problem solved.

 

[Hurricane95]

Guys,
don't dwell on statistics much. Income in different specialties are so unpredictable. I know anesthesiologists making 220k and psychiatrists making over 600k
It depends on hours, settings etc. If u r in private practice, use all modern systems (EMR, e-scripts, etc), don't use dino age services such as answ.service and billing person, keep your overhead low, you can make few hundred thousand a year more just by saving on unnecessary things.
I am telling you this based on my own experience. You can start your own practice, work decent hours, make your patient happy and swim in cash

Psychiatrists making $600k? "Prescribing" some (extra) benzos on the side, I suppose?

 

[masterofmonkeys]

I've attended nearly 200 babies mostly all alone as a part of my 10 week peds rotation and a LOT of so called routine deliveries go wrong, if not on the mother, surely for the baby, usually from circumstances like fetal suffering or other unexpected variables (meconium isn't just present in first timer moms that don't push, I've attended babies of experienced moms that get the baby out with just 1 push). We've all met a disabled child at least once who had a problem at birth and all of the complicated medical costs that entails for their treatment. I would believe some moms at one time would have the idea of suing.

Agreed. Sometimes routine vaginal deliveries go bad, which is specifically why I placed the word 'routine' in there. If there are birth complications, c-section, etc, I think that's a prudent thing to insure oneself against.

 

[TexasFight]

If salaries start getting too low and debt keeps on going up, more Americans will just study medicine outside of the US. When med schools start having trouble filling vacancies, then what?

I don't think US med schools will ever have trouble filling spots. There's too much "prestige", if you will, in being a doctor that my naive pre-med classmates see. I think we will start to see a serious issue in medicine when students drop out of medical school when they (finally) learn its not worth it (bad debt/low salary ratio). Or halfway through residency, when the taxpayers are picking up the tab. Maybe then then some lawmakers will realize the problem at hand.

 

[Renova]

If salaries start getting too low and debt keeps on going up, more Americans will just study medicine outside of the US. When med schools start having trouble filling vacancies, then what?

That doesn't make much sense. Most of the med schools outside the US that cater to Americans are for-profit institutions, and aren't significantly cheaper than American schools (not to mention travel costs, etc). Caribbean grads return to the US saddled with debt just like their US counterparts.

IF physician compensation does decline to the point where it no longer makes sense from a financial perspective to go to medical school, then I think its more likely that we're going to start importing more of our physicians from India/Pakistan/South America...people whose medical educations were almost entirely subsidized by their governments, and therefore still have some financial incentive to come and practice in the US. You'll also probably see midlievel providers (APNs, PAs) playing a bigger role as well. We're already seeing this primary care...but if the government continues to gradually disincentivise the practice of medicine in general, I think its only a matter of time before you start seeing the same phenomenon in the specialties as well.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

I think it's not exaggeration to say that medical students are the best kids we've got in a generation. They are outstanding academically. 3.60+ GPA is amazing regardless of who you ask. They have nice social skills, which a good number of 3.60+ GPA students lack (the "nerds" if you wish). They can handle stress; MCAT is ridiculously stressful. And they are willing to keep learning. As a society, what else more can you expect from an individual in addition to all these qualities?

My point is: most medical students would shine in our society no matter wherever they go. Maybe my "med-student-ego" is too big, but I really believe this. My next point is: it's probably not very difficult for them to make $100K in fields other than medicine. Medical schools are COMPETING with other professions to keep these wonderful students in the field of medicine, and I have absolutely no doubt that financial incentive is a huge factor.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Well I know how I could justify it, but I'm asking how you would because you are the one who said they should be covered.

People keep saying, "I think X, Y, and Z should be free for everyone."

I ask, "Why X,Y, and Z?" and people are responding with "Because X, Y, and Z should be covered."

No one has answered why yet.

I already gave you an answer. Obviously I believe that coverage should be much more extensive than what I said above, but that, imo, is a bare minimum that everyone supports (even Regina 'the bitch' Herzlinger).

Preventative care doesn't save money. It's actually more expensive. It's better for your health, but it comes at a cost. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/he...pagewanted=all

And why would I agree that it should be covered? My car insurance doesn't cover preventative care for my car, nor do I want it to.

You're right, most so called "preventative care" does not save money (but then again, most of what's labeled preventative is actually more aptly termed screening) . Some does though: most vaccines, prenatal care, anti-smoking initiatives. That's why I added a qualifier above.

Agreed. Sometimes routine vaginal deliveries go bad, which is specifically why I placed the word 'routine' in there. If there are birth complications, c-section, etc, I think that's a prudent thing to insure oneself against.

Situation: woman gets pregnant, but her insurance doesn't cover "routine" costs associated with pregnancy. She sees [insert name of female celebrity] on Oprah talking about the "magic of home birth". Decides that it's for her, opts for unassassted b/c midwives are expensive. Day of "magic" comes, she gets in the tub--**** happens. Husband calls the ambulance, but it's too late to save the baby.

 

[Mace1370]

I already gave you an answer. Obviously I believe that coverage should be much more extensive than what I said above, but that, imo, is a bare minimum that everyone supports (even Regina 'the bitch' Herzlinger).

This says to me that you don't know the answer to the why. And it's not a bare minimum that everyone supports. Don't talk for others.

 

[psychforme]

I think 80-100K is more than enough salary for a physician regardless of specialty.

 

[Concubine]

I think 80-100K is more than enough salary for a physician regardless of specialty.

...but not enough to pay off my loans.

 

[turkeyjerky]

This says to me that you don't know the answer to the why. And it's not a bare minimum that everyone supports. Don't talk for others.

Dude, how dense can you be? I already said that everyone (read: reasonable commenters on the issue, including those who advocate fore consumer-directed healthcare plans, but not including reactionaries on sdn who are against all forms of insurance, as well as public education, the EPA, and think that income taxes are unconstitutional) supports insurance paying for preventative care. Every high-deductible plan I've ever seen has included coverage for preventative care.

I added, because I believe a lot of what's labeled preventative care is simply over testing for pseudodisease, that, as a bare minimum everyone would support coverage of care that both saves money and improves outcomes.

Why you ask? Because it's a no-brainer. Such a measure prevents enough future disease from occurring, that it more than pays for itself. Furthermore, because sick people don't work, it leads to increased economic output. It's the essence of good medicine combined with good economics. It'd be utter lunacy not to cover it (because you want to incentivize people to get, b/c it saves the health-plan money and makes the country, as a whole, money--plus it improves the health of the populace!).

 

[RapplixGmed]

I think 80-100K is more than enough salary for a physician regardless of specialty.

Ok, when you are a physician, you take the 80k and leave the rest of the money you make for me please. I'll give you the direct deposit information so that I can profit from your naivety.

If physicians make less money, it is the insurance companies that are making more money. You think they will really charge the average person less for health insurance if suddenly they can cut the pay to doctors by half? They only reason that they aren't slashing their reimbursement rates already is that they want to stay competitive with medicare, which already reimburses so low that many doctors LOSE MONEY if they see these patients. Don't even get me started on medicaid.

 

[coffeebeanjenn]

I think 80-100K is more than enough salary for a physician regardless of specialty.

This is less than most lawyers.

Also, in many many places in the US it would be hard to live on this salary. And you would probably never own a house if you lived in or near DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Santa Cruz...

 

[psychforme]

...but not enough to pay off my loans.

Your loans shouldn't affect your salary. If people would stop taking ******edly huge loans schools would be forced to lower tuition.

 

[psychforme]

This is less than most lawyers.

Also, in many many places in the US it would be hard to live on this salary. And you would probably never own a house if you lived in or near DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Santa Cruz...

Cost of life would go down if government-backed loan bubbles would cease.

 

[TexasFight]

Your loans shouldn't affect your salary. If people would stop taking ******edly huge loans schools would be forced to lower tuition.

I guess it works like that in your world.

 

[hal9000]

Your loans shouldn't affect your salary. If people would stop taking ******edly huge loans schools would be forced to lower tuition.

You do realize you got a causal loop going there right? Chicken or the egg my friend.

 

[Concubine]

Your loans shouldn't affect your salary. If people would stop taking ******edly huge loans schools would be forced to lower tuition.

I agree that the loan amount is "******ed", but I'm faced with little choice. Parents don't pay + out of state school = lots of debt. You make it sound too easy.

 

[coffeebeanjenn]

Cost of life would go down if government-backed loan bubbles would cease.

According to all of the smart, academically trained economists I know, it won't really go down. It might stabilize, but not go down. So a $500k townhouse in DC might have a re-sale value of $480 in this market, which sucks for someone trying to sell, but that's still outside the means of someone with a $90k salary. In fact, the government-backed loans of which you speak have stopped for the most part. Loans are, in fact, very hard to get now and have pretty conventional terms (no ballooning interest, require a substantial down-payment and proof of potential income). You're taking a pretty simplistic view of salaries, loans, and the economy, which makes me think you don't really understand it.

 

[45408]

I think 80-100K is more than enough salary for a physician regardless of specialty.

Sweet, I've always wanted to go to school for 13 years to become a surgeon, just so I can make $12/hr, while the nurses who went to school for 2 years can make $28/hr.

Any specialty that works twice as much should be much more highly reimbursed, such as surgery. It's just not comparable to a clinic-based specialty that works 9-5, Monday through Friday, with an hour for lunch.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Sweet, I've always wanted to go to school for 13 years to become a surgeon, just so I can make $12/hr, while the nurses who went to school for 2 years can make $28/hr.

Any specialty that works twice as much should be much more highly reimbursed, such as surgery. It's just not comparable to a clinic-based specialty that works 9-5, Monday through Friday, with an hour for lunch.

I made $10.50/hour at my summer job entering data into a computer (no thinking, just entering data into excel, etc.) after my freshman year of college. An additional 12 years of training so that I can make $1.50 more per hour?! Oh boy!!

 

[RapplixGmed]

A lot of premeds want us to raise our hands and sing kumbaya and give free care to everyone and have doctors live in the upper lower class until Hippocrates returns and gives out infinite health care to all.

It is just this mindset that makes many other professions (rightfully) think that doctors as a group are pushovers. We have lost an incredible amount of autonomy recently up to the point that what procedures we can do, what we can charge, and the hours that we work are pretty much dictated by other people. The government has taken away our right to strike and dictates most of our pay, the lawyers are attacking on the edges like rabid dogs, the insurance companies think they can cheat us and our patients out of payment at every turn, and the only well recognized organization of doctors, the AMA represents a small minority of practicing physicians.

Doctors must not only be an advocate for their patients but also strive to defend the dignity of Medicine. We do a disservice to our patients if doctors are underpaid, overstressed, and cannot make a living that is proportional to their status in society, especially after making less than minimum wage during residency. As healers, we cannot be blatantly greedy like the lawyers and the bankers but we should not stand by and let others steal income that is rightfully ours.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Sweet, I've always wanted to go to school for 13 years to become a surgeon, just so I can make $12/hr, while the nurses who went to school for 2 years can make $28/hr.

Any specialty that works twice as much should be much more highly reimbursed, such as surgery. It's just not comparable to a clinic-based specialty that works 9-5, Monday through Friday, with an hour for lunch.

Even those clinic-based specialties don't always work just 9-5 with an hour for lunch.

I present to you a rural FM doc solo or in small practice.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

A lot of premeds want us to raise our hands and sing kumbaya and give free care to everyone and have doctors live in the upper lower class until Hippocrates returns and gives out infinite health care to all.

It is just this mindset that makes many other professions (rightfully) think that doctors as a group are pushovers. We have lost an incredible amount of autonomy recently up to the point that what procedures we can do, what we can charge, and the hours that we work are pretty much dictated by other people. The government has taken away our right to strike and dictates most of our pay, the lawyers are attacking on the edges like rabid dogs, the insurance companies think they can cheat us and our patients out of payment at every turn, and the only well recognized organization of doctors, the AMA represents a small minority of practicing physicians.

Doctors must not only be an advocate for their patients but also strive to defend the dignity of Medicine. We do a disservice to our patients if doctors are underpaid, overstressed, and cannot make a living that is proportional to their status in society, especially after making less than minimum wage during residency. As healers, we cannot be blatantly greedy like the lawyers and the bankers but we should not stand by and let others steal income that is rightfully ours.

The cure for the pre-med kumbaya is med school, residency, and being pushed into the real world of a practicing physician.

 

[Mace1370]

Dude, how dense can you be? I already said that everyone (read: reasonable commenters on the issue, including those who advocate fore consumer-directed healthcare plans, but not including reactionaries on sdn who are against all forms of insurance, as well as public education, the EPA, and think that income taxes are unconstitutional) supports insurance paying for preventative care. Every high-deductible plan I've ever seen has included coverage for preventative care.

I added, because I believe a lot of what's labeled preventative care is simply over testing for pseudodisease, that, as a bare minimum everyone would support coverage of care that both saves money and improves outcomes.

Why you ask? Because it's a no-brainer. Such a measure prevents enough future disease from occurring, that it more than pays for itself. Furthermore, because sick people don't work, it leads to increased economic output. It's the essence of good medicine combined with good economics. It'd be utter lunacy not to cover it (because you want to incentivize people to get, b/c it saves the health-plan money and makes the country, as a whole, money--plus it improves the health of the populace!).

Let's go over some of your main points in this post:

1) I'm dense
2) Anyone who is reasonable should agree with you
3) Those that don't are reactionaries
4) Having society pay for certain procedures is justified because it is a no-brainer
5) It would be lunacy to not cover this stuff

Do you honestly think it was worthwhile to post these?

Now, to address some of your more reasonable, less inflammatory claims:

1) Society should pay for the previously outlined procedures because it will save cost and prevent disease down the road.

You can say this about any form of treatment. For example: tax payers should fund all triple bipass surgeries because that means fat people will be less likely to have MIs while driving, thereby reducing the risk to society.

This isn't a valid argument because simply because legislation may produce good effects (prevent disease, etc) it does not mean it is ethical to do so. We could shoot all the sick people and that would prevent disease, but we don't because that would be wrong.

2) It improves the health of the populace

This is wrong for the same reason that #1 is wrong. We can do any number of things to improve the overall health of Americans, but this end does not justify the means (redistribution of wealth).

 

[womp]

A lot of premeds want us to raise our hands and sing kumbaya and give free care to everyone and have doctors live in the upper lower class until Hippocrates returns and gives out infinite health care to all.

It is just this mindset that makes many other professions (rightfully) think that doctors as a group are pushovers.

Or they are just trying to get into medical school. It does seem that is what you have to say and do to get in. There needs to be some reform in the med school admissions process. It needs to be less dominated by education majors who think it's easy to get a 4.0 (have you taken an education class?) and save the world at the same time.

Law school doesn't even require an interview.

 

[Mace1370]

Or they are just trying to get into medical school. It does seem that is what you have to say and do to get in. There needs to be some reform in the med school admissions process. It needs to be less dominated by education majors who think it's easy to get a 4.0 (have you taken an education class?) and save the world at the same time.

Law school doesn't even require an interview.

From my experience about half of them had taken the cool-aid and actually believed it, while the other half was just saying to look good.

 

[cgscribe]

The cure for the pre-med kumbaya is med school, residency, and being pushed into the real world of a practicing physician.

Awesome quote.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Let's go over some of your main points in this post:

1) I'm dense
2) Anyone who is reasonable should agree with you
3) Those that don't are reactionaries
4) Having society pay for certain procedures is justified because it is a no-brainer
5) It would be lunacy to not cover this stuff

Do you honestly think it was worthwhile to post these?

Now, to address some of your more reasonable, less inflammatory claims:

1) Society should pay for the previously outlined procedures because it will save cost and prevent disease down the road.

You can say this about any form of treatment. For example: tax payers should fund all triple bipass surgeries because that means fat people will be less likely to have MIs while driving, thereby reducing the risk to society.

This isn't a valid argument because simply because legislation may produce good effects (prevent disease, etc) it does not mean it is ethical to do so. We could shoot all the sick people and that would prevent disease, but we don't because that would be wrong.

2) It improves the health of the populace

This is wrong for the same reason that #1 is wrong. We can do any number of things to improve the overall health of Americans, but this end does not justify the means (redistribution of wealth).

It's like talking to a brick wall...