Physician Salaries - below 100K

[surag]

I guess I should also preemptively state that I think there should be massive reform of medical education and the eventual total elimination of student loans for medical students.

HAHAHA. meister...you're so inane.

Post office is fine? really? they're nearly 8 billion in the red. they've been in the red for nearly TEN years.

AMTRAK anyone?

Medicare and Medicaid while great for whom they apply to are one of the MOST EXPENSIVE PROGRAMS IN THE WORLD. They cost an insane amount and help a very SMALL subset of our population. Government run healthcare has a different set of pitfalls that health insurance companies dont have.

and dont even sit there and try and justify yourself by saying you're REALITY.

YOU'RE NOT. You're being a sore loser. perhaps you know you wont be making that much money? perhaps you dont care for it? others might, others do. no one has the right to dictate how much money a person can or cannot make.

claiming that doctors salaries are the reason why healthcare costs are high plays to someone's emotions and not the MIND. you sound *****.

only SEVEN percent. thats right SEVEN PERCENT. let me repeat that over and over again

seven percent
seven percent
seven percent
seven percent.

will be SAVED. should reimbursement rates and physician salaries be brought down. SEVEN PERCENT YOU (insert expletive).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[meister]

All are insolvent, all will eventually have to be scrapped. The fact that you consider any of these options to be "excellent" completely eradicates any thoughts that anyone on this forum had that you have functioning brain cells.

Oh cool a pre-dental student here to tell me about reality.

The reason that they still exist is because when they run out of money, they don't go out of business, they just take more (taxes). There is no effort to reform them because there has never been any need, they just up the budget. This is not a recipe for long-term stability. There will be a breaking point where they literally cannot take anymore, and that time is fast approaching since any effort to curb spending in those areas would be political suicide. As a result, everyone will keep up this charade until they cannot anymore, and we (and by that, I mean productive members of society) will end up holding the bag.

This is cute, you assume putting everyone into one insurance company, eliminating an entire industry based on waste an inefficiency, and instituting strong structural reform in the way medicine is practiced will somehow cost more money.

Nothing could possibly cost more money than our current system. The big point your missing is that TAXDOLLARS and DOLLARS GIVEN TO ANTHEM are the same damn dollars. You people are really dense.

They're both going bankrupt. They're putting out more money than they bring in. That doesn't bother you at all? Medicare is only going to last until 2017 at this rate. Or did the Huffington Post not tell you that part?

Oh look someone with an objection that isn't completely drowning in false reality and Rush Limbaugh soundbits (only just a little). Do you want to know why it doesn't bother me? Because those programs aren't supposed to make money, they are not corporations. They are providing a necessary service to the disabled, elderly and poor. Now, why do they cost so much? Gee I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that the private health insurance industry has kicked out and rendered uninsurable the costliest patients! (ie the disabled, elderly and poor. You know, the ones with the real problems.)

Bringing everyone into Medicare would lower costs, not raise them all. But your point about Medicare spending being unsustainable is true but doubly so for private insurance. The difference is that with the full weight of the federal government we can begin to undo some of the horrible practices of modern medicine. A hodgepodge of a thousand different private companies has no incentive to do so. But you see, this is an interesting discussion. Because on this particular point reasonable minds can disagree. I have zero faith in private companies to curb spending, and more than a nonzero faith in the feds to undo nasty habits. I'm guessing you are the opposite. I would ask you to provide me with some evidence that gives me any reason to think a billion private plans could reverse our spending trends. Because, you see, I have dozens of examples across the world of government run healthcare that has lower costs than the US. But you don't have any examples of free market magic powers lowering costs anywhere, ever. Although you do have examples of free housing markets bringing our country to its knees!

I should emphasize that Medicare is not supposed to turn a profit, saying that it should just shows you don't understand it. The reason it's going bankrupt is due to the modern practice of medicine in the US, and because of a lack of tax revenue supporting it.

Healthcare aside, it astounds me how willing some people are to give up personal freedom/choice for security. History has shown again and again that if you give the government all the power, it will come back to bite you in the ass.

Sorry folks history proves me right! Alright give me one example of government run healthcare gone awry outside the US. Just one. By the way quoting dead white supremacists from 200+ years ago doesn't really get you any points in my book, FYI.

HAHAHA. meister...you're so inane.

Oh cool a pre-med student here to tell me about the real world.

Medicare and Medicaid while great for whom they apply to are one of the MOST EXPENSIVE PROGRAMS IN THE WORLD. They cost an insane amount and help a very SMALL subset of our population. Government run healthcare has a different set of pitfalls that health insurance companies dont have.

Medicare is great for whom they apply. You admit this. All I'm arguing is that we should open up Medicare for everyone. What is your objection to that?

claiming that doctors salaries are the reason why healthcare costs are high plays to someone's emotions and not the MIND. you sound *****.

only SEVEN percent. thats right SEVEN PERCENT. let me repeat that over and over again

seven percent
seven percent
seven percent
seven percent.

will be SAVED. should reimbursement rates and physician salaries be brought down. SEVEN PERCENT YOU (insert expletive).

Look at the premed rant about a minor drop in his future potential earning. How cute.

 

[meister]

Fannie and Freddie, no it was the govt forcing banks to give loans to people who had no ability to pay them.

You are an idiot and a bigot. You are blaming poor people for the housing crash. This is probably one of the most insidious Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity talking points out there, blame those damn poors for all your problems!!!

Meanwhile, ignore everything having to do with AIG or credit default swaps, ignore everything having to do with the SEC being asleep at the wheel, ignore everything having to do with the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act, ignore the trillions of dollars in tax cuts George W. Bush gave to the wealthiest Americans, ignore that the top 0.1% have more wealth now than at any time in recorded history, ignore that the Iraq war costs a billion dollars a day, ignore the bank bailouts your buddy W started, ignore credit card companies ****ing the consumer in the ass, ignore the entire student loan industry, ignore all the goddamn meta-industries set up in this house of cards country designed specifically to extract as much money from the lower and middle classes as possible without pissing them off too much.

Mention providing healthcare to everyone and THAT'S when you go ape****. Here's an idea: shut up.

 

[surag]

I just realized, you're a troll...and you hijacked the thread. Jesus.
:troll:

and you are now blocked.

 

[jackets5]

Oh cool a pre-dental student here to tell me about reality.

This is cute, you assume putting everyone into one insurance company, eliminating an entire industry based on waste an inefficiency, and instituting strong structural reform in the way medicine is practiced will somehow cost more money.

Nothing could possibly cost more money than our current system. The big point your missing is that TAXDOLLARS and DOLLARS GIVEN TO ANTHEM are the same damn dollars. You people are really dense.



Oh look someone with an objection that isn't completely drowning in false reality and Rush Limbaugh soundbits (only just a little). Do you want to know why it doesn't bother me? Because those programs aren't supposed to make money, they are not corporations. They are providing a necessary service to the disabled, elderly and poor. Now, why do they cost so much? Gee I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that the private health insurance industry has kicked out and rendered uninsurable the costliest patients! (ie the disabled, elderly and poor. You know, the ones with the real problems.)

Bringing everyone into Medicare would lower costs, not raise them all. But your point about Medicare spending being unsustainable is true but doubly so for private insurance. The difference is that with the full weight of the federal government we can begin to undo some of the horrible practices of modern medicine. A hodgepodge of a thousand different private companies has no incentive to do so. But you see, this is an interesting discussion. Because on this particular point reasonable minds can disagree. I have zero faith in private companies to curb spending, and more than a nonzero faith in the feds to undo nasty habits. I'm guessing you are the opposite. I would ask you to provide me with some evidence that gives me any reason to think a billion private plans could reverse our spending trends. Because, you see, I have dozens of examples across the world of government run healthcare that has lower costs than the US. But you don't have any examples of free market magic powers lowering costs anywhere, ever. Although you do have examples of free housing markets bringing our country to its knees!

I should emphasize that Medicare is not supposed to turn a profit, saying that it should just shows you don't understand it. The reason it's going bankrupt is due to the modern practice of medicine in the US, and because of a lack of tax revenue supporting it.


Sorry folks history proves me right! Alright give me one example of government run healthcare gone awry outside the US. Just one. By the way quoting dead white supremacists from 200+ years ago doesn't really get you any points in my book, FYI.


Oh cool a pre-med student here to tell me about the real world.

Medicare is great for whom they apply. You admit this. All I'm arguing is that we should open up Medicare for everyone. What is your objection to that?

Look at the premed rant about a minor drop in his future potential earning. How cute.

you are either an idiot or a troll. Its not worth talking to you. Medicare should not turn a profit, but i should be able to operate and massive losses. How much do you want to pay in taxes to support this govt run health care 60%. All you do is talk and you actually dont answer anything that people have said and simply resort to personal attacks.

Im a bigot because i said banks gave loans to people who couldnt afford them. Well that is true and the govt made them lower their lending criteria to lend. It has nothing to do with poor people, if you cant afford something you dont buy it, so the govt is at fault, the banks are at fault and the people who took the loans are at fault.

Humor me and address the issue of tort reform for a minute and tell me what you think. Dont you think Drs. not having to practice CYA medicine and ordering every single lab and imaging study to protect themselves will not lower costs by billions a yearly

 

[womp]

Primary Care doctors' salaries are growing barely above inflation, while nearly every other non-physician white-collar professional (middle managers, pharmacists) have seen their salaries out pace inflation by at least 50% in the last decade. In other words, all of these other professionals are now making 100k, while primary care doctors with higher education and training see more patients, work longer hours and still make roughly the same real salary (adjusted for inflation) as a decade ago.

Here's a timetrend of average advertising middle manager salaries from the US Bureau of Labor Services:

Year  Salary   Growth  CPI Inflation
1999  $58,910
2000  $62,260  5.69%   3.38%
2001  $64,960  4.34%   2.83%
2002  $69,200  6.53%   1.59%
2003  $73,170  5.74%   2.27%
2004  $76,460  4.50%   2.68%
2005  $81,250  6.26%   3.39%
2006  $85,140  4.79%   3.24%
2007  $91,100  7.00%   2.85%
2008  $94,720  3.97%   3.85%

Average pharmacist salaries from the US Bureau of Labor Services:

Year  Salary   Growth  CPI Inflation
1999  $63,030
2000  $69,440  10.17%  3.38%
2001  $72,830  4.88%  2.83%
2002  $75,140  3.17%  1.59%
2003  $78,620  4.63%  2.27%
2004  $84,370  7.31%  2.68%
2005  $88,650  5.07%  3.39%
2006  $93,500  5.47%  3.24%
2007  $98,960  5.84%  2.85%
2008  $104,260  5.36%  3.85%

Average board-certified pediatrician salaries from the US Bureau of Labor Services:

Year  Salary   Growth  CPI Inflation
1999  $112,760
2000  $117,020   3.78%   3.38%
2001  $116,550   -0.40%   2.83%
2002  $142,360   22.15%  1.59%
2003  $143,300   0.66%   2.27%
2004  $141,520   -1.24%   2.68%
2005  $139,230   -1.62%   3.39%
2006  $141,440   1.59%   3.24%
2007  $145,210   2.67%   2.85%
2008  $153,370   5.62%   3.85%

 

[45408]

Because those programs aren't supposed to make money, they are not corporations. They are providing a necessary service to the disabled, elderly and poor. Now, why do they cost so much? Gee I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that the private health insurance industry has kicked out and rendered uninsurable the costliest patients! (ie the disabled, elderly and poor. You know, the ones with the real problems.)

Medicare stepped in to take care of the elderly a LONG time before health insurance started becoming a problem. It's been around for over 50 years. I don't expect it to MAKE money, but it needs to be financially solvent. Our government SHOULD be budget neutral - it shouldn't need to be borrowing money every year. It should have a revenue stream adequate to meet its outlays. If it can't do that, then it needs to stop offering more benefits.

Medicare is becoming insolvent because it pays out too much in the way of benefits. Medicare part D - put in place by a Republican no less - was incredibly stupid.

I have zero faith in private companies to curb spending, and more than a nonzero faith in the feds to undo nasty habits. I'm guessing you are the opposite. I would ask you to provide me with some evidence that gives me any reason to think a billion private plans could reverse our spending trends.

Real talk here: has the government ever curbed spending?

I should emphasize that Medicare is not supposed to turn a profit, saying that it should just shows you don't understand it. The reason it's going bankrupt is due to the modern practice of medicine in the US, and because of a lack of tax revenue supporting it.

I didn't say it should. That shows a lack of understanding of my post on your part.

 

[surag]

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

Meister or whatever is a BULLY AND A TROLL. do NOT listen to him. DO NOT.

TROLL

 

[SirGecko]

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

Meister or whatever is a BULLY AND A TROLL. do NOT listen to him. DO NOT.

TROLL

Bully, yes. Troll? Somehow I doubt that a someone with that has been a member that long is a troll. He probably honestly believes everything he is saying but is just so entrenched in his own viewpoint that he cannot discuss the issue in an intelligent and respectful manner. I think that you should probably treat him like a troll and stop talking to him but I doubt he is just doing this to get a rise out of people.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

womp (or anybody else) do you know what happened in 2002 to cause pediatricians to have a 22% increase? Wierd.

 

[genswim24]

I don't know where you are getting this but I suggest you try to go to a non tourist area the next time you are in England to see real prices. This is like an Englishman going to Disneyworld and saying "Blimey, yankees have to pay 12 dollars for a bloody soda, 20 dollars for a funnel cake how the hell do they get so fat."

Well my in laws are there, so I rarely go to the "tourist" areas, but I can change this is you would like to non-city circumstances. I go to my local bar and pay 2.50 for a pint. I go to a non tourist area in england and get a pint for 2 and a half pounds. The point is, when you earn a pound you don't simply convert that total to dollars and say you are making more. Your salary only matters compared to the cost of living. Most positions in england pay more in salary, but they also pay more for most goods/services.

That 15% of salary that the socialized countries are paying in addition to the taxes we pay is a substantial bit of money. I certainly agree that people in those countries get more, but they are also paying a lot more of their salary. Are the extra services the socialized countries are providing worth the extra money that citizens pay? That is a personal preference question, but in my opinion, no. That part is simply my opinion though, and if you are free to disagree (which you obviously do).

 

[meister]

Medicare stepped in to take care of the elderly a LONG time before health insurance started becoming a problem. It's been around for over 50 years. I don't expect it to MAKE money, but it needs to be financially solvent. Our government SHOULD be budget neutral - it shouldn't need to be borrowing money every year. It should have a revenue stream adequate to meet its outlays. If it can't do that, then it needs to stop offering more benefits.

Well, I don't agree that being budget neutral is necessary for a government, but I understand your point. However, the reason Medicare is going insolvent within the next decade is not due to the simple fact that it is government run. Do you acknowledge that? I agree that we have to raise taxes, but here's the thing: if we killed all private insurance companies, expanded Medicare for all, and raised taxes to cover everyone, we would save TOTAL DOLLARS. Yes, it would cost more in taxes, but the only ones whining about that are rich people and stupid stupid poor people. (Usually white poor people who have been told Obama is changing America. No dog-whistle here folks! Just a bunch of rational actors.)

Medicare is becoming insolvent because it pays out too much in the way of benefits. Medicare part D - put in place by a Republican no less - was incredibly stupid.

Negotiate drug prices, kill big pharma's feeding trough, problem solved. Do you think it's a coincidence that part D was enacted by a republican and was 100% meant to be a give-away from the middle class to the wealthy?

Real talk here: has the government ever curbed spending?

An excellent question. Let's take a look at public healthcare around the world.

This is by far my favorite. We are already third in the first world on per capita public healthcare spending! To only cover 40% of our population!!! This is insane, and the reason is obvious: we are the only nation that lets private insurers run wild and snatch up all those delicious healthy young people. Why wouldn't they want the truly sick and destitute? Because it is their own self interest to kick off unprofitable patients. You can't blame them, it's just business!

Well, **** that. Those profitable patients should be on public plans so that we can remain solvent while we figure out how to fix all the **** the GOP crapped out over the past decade.

Another excellent one. Just on public spending + OOP expenses we are number 1 in the world per capita. Then you roll the big fat private insurance spending on top of that and WHOMP we are twice as high as any other wealthy nation. Again, BATSH*T INSANE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT RIOTING IN THE STREETS.

Now, no more side-stepping, why don't you provide one shred of evidence that anything you are suggesting would do anything at all to get healthcare spending under control before we turn into a 21st century feudal state?

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

Meister or whatever is a BULLY AND A TROLL. do NOT listen to him. DO NOT.

TROLL

You are a child. Those feelings in your brain that maybe you don't know everything are good, go with them. See what happens.

So now we are left with only a couple reasons anyone really opposes mega-reform: future earning potential or a spurning of the lower and middle classes. Here at SDN I'm fairly certain it's almost all pre-med and med students staring $300k of loan debt in the face and wondering how the f*ck they'll pay that all back. That's fair, but if you take everything I am suggesting and also include massive subsidization of medical education (to the tune of $3-5b), you are now graduating with zero debt. What then?

The second people, those who spurn the poor, I blame squarely on Reagan and the GOP strawman of the welfare queen. Here's a big hint for y'all: no one is getting a free ride on government services except the military, pharma, private contractors, private insurers, big farm, and BANKERS. The amount spent to provide basic welfare to the poor and food stamps is RIDICULOUSLY LOW compared to these feeding trough cake-eating aristocrats. WAKE THE HELL UP BEFORE THIS COUNTRY GOES IN THE TOILET.

Alright proceed to ignore everything I just said and continue with those logic errors bouncing around in your heads blaming the victim. Oh yeah and never post any evidence, ever.

 

[meister]

That 15% of salary that the socialized countries are paying in addition to the taxes we pay is a substantial bit of money. I certainly agree that people in those countries get more, but they are also paying a lot more of their salary. Are the extra services the socialized countries are providing worth the extra money that citizens pay? That is a personal preference question, but in my opinion, no.

Here's the same hint I've been saying for quite some time: they don't really pay more in those countries. They just pay more taxes. Total dollars spent is substantially lower per capita. What now?

 

[meister]

Oh yeah I also forgot that all of this hand-wrining about physician salaries below $100k is pretty laughable because nowhere in the first world do doctors make that sort of salary and not get either free medical education, no worries about malpractice insurance, or vastly simplified billing practices, or as is the case in most countries all three of those. So the $100k number is a fantasy that will never happen. Just FYI.

 

[45408]

An excellent question. Let's take a look at public healthcare around the world.

If it was an excellent question, why didn't you provide an answer? We're talking about the US government, not the UK, not Canada, and not Bahrain. Stay on point here.

Now, no more side-stepping, why don't you provide one shred of evidence that anything you are suggesting would do anything at all to get healthcare spending under control before we turn into a 21st century feudal state?

Do you even know what I'm suggesting? I doubt it.

People curb their spending when they spend their own money. They don't curb their spending when they spend someone else's money. I'm not providing evidence for this, because it is completely obvious. Medicare recipients aren't spending their money, so they have no incentive to curb their spending. I would change that.

 

[45408]

Here's the same hint I've been saying for quite some time: they don't really pay more in those countries. They just pay more taxes. Total dollars spent is substantially lower per capita. What now?

That's nice. Who cares? We're not going to get the UK's system (or any other country's) so it's pointless to discuss their costs. Let's talk about what our costs would be.

 

[ChiDO]

To only cover 40% of our population!!!

This thread as well as your inability to even listen to what other people are saying is just astonishing. All you supports of the sun-god, ra-obama, really need to wake up.

One of my biggest complaints is the constant fudging of numbers that the administer tells everyone. 46 million uninsured (not sure where your 40% number is coming), would only equate to 13% of our population being without insurance. But then, this 46 million is the biggest misnomer out there.

+46 million "uninsured"
-9.7 million illegal immigrants
-9.1 million households that make $75K+ per year but choose not to purchase insurance
-12 million eligible for Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance
-5 million Childless Adults
___________________________
10.2 Million uninsured Americans

Another source (in picture form says 10.6 million).

And a political cartoon for those who need a laugh:

So if you take those 10 million and divide it by our population (300 million): only 3% of AMERICANS are UNINSURED.

I would invite all of you to go read www.realclearpolitics.com (it has articles written by both sides).

Here is an excerpt from an article from today about Obama's inability and unwillingness to answer questions with a straight forward response.

"Obama has failed, fairly dismally so far, to match interior vision with exterior reality. How do we come up with an extra trillion dollars to finance a federal health care takeover, and why are we even talking about it with deficits soaring? And how do you convince 300 million people in a matter of months that the health care system that most find acceptable is a ruin and wreck in need of replacement? Those would be just a few of the questions crying out for answers, which our celebrity-in-chief may or may not bring us in coming days."

 

[Blesbok]

If it was an excellent question, why didn't you provide an answer? We're talking about the US government, not the UK, not Canada, and not Bahrain. Stay on point here.


Do you even know what I'm suggesting? I doubt it.

People curb their spending when they spend their own money. They don't curb their spending when they spend someone else's money. I'm not providing evidence for this, because it is completely obvious. Medicare recipients aren't spending their money, so they have no incentive to curb their spending. I would change that.

I truly believe that if you charged a $2 copay at many of these clinics, the number of patients that reap the benefits of other's taxes would drop in half. Why? Because then they would have some incentive to only come when they truly are in need of a doctor. Copays are in fact probably the best idea ever when it comes to insurance.

 

[45408]

I truly believe that if you charged a $2 copay at many of these clinics, the number of patients that reap the benefits of other's taxes would drop in half. Why? Because then they would have some incentive to only come when they truly are in need of a doctor. Copays are in fact probably the best idea ever when it comes to insurance.

$15 to see your PCP. $30 to see an urgent care clinic. $75 to go to the ER. I bet you'd see people going to the proper level of care in a real hurry.

 

[jejun]

Several insurance companies (I would guess most) implement a copay but the cost of health care costs are still spiraling out of control. Why? I agree copays make a difference (among several other factors), but do they really cut costs where they count?

The major increases in costs are most likely due to private interests and the for profit nature of our medicine. Our country has the best cancer treatment in the world (because of insane amounts of money that have been funneled into R&D) but when it comes to your general patient problems we are out performed (in both outcomes and cost effectiveness). Why do Americans have several fold the number of MRI taken in other modern health care systems? We aren't getting better treatment/outcomes. It could be because our system has been fundamentally built on these technologies (among many others) and private companies love it. Patient's love it too, because they feel they are getting SPECIAL treatment, but really they're just consuming very very expensive resources.

Sorry for note citing my statements above, but a lot of these arguments are fully developed in A Second Opinion by Arther Relman <http://www.amazon.com/Second-Opinion-Rescuing-Americas-Health/dp/1586484818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252225821&sr=8-1>. I read it last year to get a better understanding and I felt it made a really strong argument. He's a reputable voice and is also a physician if that makes a different to you.

Good discussion. Hopefully we get to see some major progress during our careers.

 

[Blesbok]

Several insurance companies (I would guess most) implement a copay but the cost of health care costs are still spiraling out of control. Why? I agree copays make a difference (among several other factors), but do they really cut costs where they count?

The major increases in costs are most likely due to private interests and the for profit nature of our medicine. Our country has the best cancer treatment in the world (because of insane amounts of money that have been funneled into R&D) but when it comes to your general patient problems we are out performed (in both outcomes and cost effectiveness). Why do Americans have several fold the number of MRI taken in other modern health care systems? We aren't getting better treatment/outcomes. It could be because our system has been fundamentally built on these technologies (among many others) and private companies love it. Patient's love it too, because they feel they are getting SPECIAL treatment, but really they're just consuming very very expensive resources.

Sorry for note citing my statements above, but a lot of these arguments are fully developed in A Second Opinion by Arther Relman <http://www.amazon.com/Second-Opinion-Rescuing-Americas-Health/dp/1586484818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252225821&sr=8-1>. I read it last year to get a better understanding and I felt it made a really strong argument. He's a reputable voice and is also a physician if that makes a different to you.

Good discussion. Hopefully we get to see some major progress during our careers.

I will tell you why we have several fold hte MRI. Because we need tort reform as a country, not just by individual states. Physicians order many unnecessary tests as defensive medicine, because the people of America have become greedy and entitled.

 

[basupran]

How are you normalizing?

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Several insurance companies (I would guess most) implement a copay but the cost of health care costs are still spiraling out of control. Why? I agree copays make a difference (among several other factors), but do they really cut costs where they count?

Agreed. Copays don't really scale well. We mainly see the costs of overutilization go up after our premiums go up...which is a bit late, and a bit concealed.

The major increases in costs are most likely due to private interests and the for profit nature of our medicine.

Of course, our desire for the latest, greatest thing is what drives the demand. The problem being that we don't notice these excess costs at the time of actually contracting for services. We see them when our premiums get jacked up.

Our country has the best cancer treatment in the world (because of insane amounts of money that have been funneled into R&D) but when it comes to your general patient problems we are out performed (in both outcomes and cost effectiveness).

You can't look at health outcomes using healthcare as the only variable. Health attitudes and behaviors of the population also play a major role. Our diets, inactivity, etc play a major role in our higher health costs, and our poorer outcomes as well.

Why do Americans have several fold the number of MRI taken in other modern health care systems? We aren't getting better treatment/outcomes. It could be because our system has been fundamentally built on these technologies (among many others) and private companies love it. Patient's love it too, because they feel they are getting SPECIAL treatment, but really they're just consuming very very expensive resources.

Exactly. And the patients don't really think about the costs because they don't ever see them directly.

Again, I'd argue that the profiteering is engendered in large part because health consumers don't make educated or transparent decisions, as in my celebrex example.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

I will tell you why we have several fold hte MRI. Because we need tort reform as a country, not just by individual states. Physicians order many unnecessary tests as defensive medicine, because the people of America have become greedy and entitled.

I'm a huge advocate of tort reform (not necessarily in the form of caps, but rather by staying true to the idea of a 'jury of your peers'. Someone whose IQ is lower than the number of teeth they have (also low) is patently unable to make an intelligent and educated decision about a doctor's role in an adverse health outcome.

Someone else hit it on hte head, it makes us 'feel special'. Copay for X-rays is 50 dollars under my old health insurance. MRI was 250. 5x as much money for sooo much prettier pictures. It has to be worth it. real cost difference is 100 versus 1800. I bet people would make different decisions if they viewed those differences.

 

[jejun]

Something else to consider is that the people making these decisions really are NOT the patients and their IQ doesn't play THAT much of role in the insane cost of our health care.

Relative to the physician a patient is seeing, the patient generally knows little to nothing. Their source of medical information stems from the internet, advertisements, and friends/family. So if they recognize this information gap (I think most patients do), they will take the advice of their physician very seriously.

Now here is the sticky part. Physician's have no incentive NOT to use expensive technology. In fact some of them benefit from it. In this country it is possible for a physician to make a deal with an MRI imaging center that gives the physician some percentage of the company's profit. This is basically a feed back loop. As more people who get MRIs or use expensive technology, the imaging company and physician make a considerable profit. This is FOR-PROFIT-MEDICINE!!! -> the major cause of our of control costs.

This is not claiming that these physician's are running a scam. But they are profiting from these referrals so if there is any hint of need for an MRI and the physician has an ulterior motive, chances are the patient will get the MRI. Also, when America underwent this medical technology boom (around the 1950s), private companies invested millions of dollars in R&D. They like our current system (as do the physicians, mostly specialists, benefiting from it) and will fight hard to keep it expensive.

 

[JacobSilge]

Now here is the sticky part. Physician's have no incentive NOT to use expensive technology. In fact some of them benefit from it. In this country it is possible for a physician to make a deal with an MRI imaging center that gives the physician some percentage of the company's profit. This is basically a feed back loop. As more people who get MRIs or use expensive technology, the imaging company and physician make a considerable profit. This is FOR-PROFIT-MEDICINE!!! -> the major cause of our of control costs.

This is not claiming that these physician's are running a scam. But they are profiting from these referrals so if there is any hint of need for an MRI and the physician has an ulterior motive, chances are the patient will get the MRI.

I'm pretty sure that with only a few exceptions (namely cardiologists and orthopedists reading their own imaging studies), this sort of arrangment would be in violation of the already existing Stark Laws.

 

[jejun]

You could be right. I don't know much about Stark Laws.

I got that information from "A Second Opinion" mentioned above and I know the author provides detailed references for his information. I also happen to personally know someone who own a radiology practice and a imaging center (which would be an example of the arrangement I described).

 

[meister]

So if you take those 10 million and divide it by our population (300 million): only 3% of AMERICANS are UNINSURED.

Just want to quote this again, for posterity. Love how you decide poor people, minorities, immigrants (both legal and illegal), young people, and rich stupid people aren't real AMERICANS and that there really is no uninsured problem.

You make me sick, propaganda spouting know-nothing peon.

 

[meister]

And again, I'll point out just to emphasize that NOTHING ANYONE IN WASHINGTON IS SUGGESTING IS GOING TO DO A GODDAMN THING TO LOWER PHYSICIAN SALARIES SUBSTANTIALLY. NOTHING.

The scare-mongering and knee-jerk ******edness going on is just staggering. Does anyone think beyond the nicely packaged talking points? WHY IS ANYONE LISTENING TO A PARTY THAT PUT US IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET DEFICIT WHINE ABOUT THE DEFICIT??? SHUT UP. Sickening.

Just ****ing unbelievable.

 

[Concubine]

Just ****ing unbelievable.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[meister]

My thoughts exactly.

I'm sorry, did you forget my request?

Alright give me one example of government run healthcare gone awry outside the US. Just one.

Feel free to ignore the whole "provide evidence for assertions" part of debates, though. Since, you know, you have absolutely no basis for what you're saying or thinking. Just 100% pure gut-think.

Can't wait to read your "evidence" that only consists of prostate cancer survival rates or the ability to get Avastin. Since that's the only thing right-wingers can seem to talk about.*

*ignore the part about 65+ year olds in the US already being covered by a goverment-run system.

 

[45408]

I'm done. You're childish beyond belief.

Well, I showed several examples of government-run healthcare systems having substantially lowered costs than in the US. You thus far have provided zero evidence for anything you're suggesting.

Why don't you suggest some things then? Or would you rather sit there smugly without really contributing? Gut-think and "obvious, common sense" solutions are the same bullsh*t Reagan type solutions that have put us in our current mess, I want evidence and real arguments. There are myriad problems with what you're suggesting, not the least of which is that patients aren't really in control of healthcare spending, and healthcare is not a free market.

So we're dropping all real arguments and instead sticking to our current level of discourse? Alright well let's all ignore the millions of uninsured and instead talk about being budget-neutral and coops. And death panels. And pulling the plug on grandma. What we're going to get is individual mandates to buy high deductible horrible private plans. And the democrats are going to get creamed in 2010 and the GOP will offer no real solutions beyind "tax cuts!" and "free market!" You know, the same song-and-dance from the 1980 election. That's a boring discussion I'd rather not have.

Wow, the court jester decided to join us. Close your freerepublic.com tab to be able to fully concentrate.

Lol, you are such a clown. First of all, why do you trust anything written by a guy whose first shout-out goes to Karl Rove and Sean Hannity? Pure propaganda, enabling you to demonize and mitigate those uninsured, as you say with scorn. Secondly, the attacks against the 47 million uninsured are nearly 100% frought with lies. In case you care (which I highly doubt):

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628

oh look census bureau data backing up the 47 million claim. Among the facts on that site:
-Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes. Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000.
-African-Americans (19.6 percent uninsured) and Hispanics (32.7 percent) were much more likely to be uninsured than white, non-Hispanic people (11.3 percent).
-The percentage of native-born citizens who were uninsured rose in 2005, while the percentage of non-citizen immigrants who lacked coverage was unchanged. Nonetheless, non-citizen immigrantswere far more likely to be uninsured (43.6 percent uninsured) than native-born citizens (13.4 percent). The principal reason so many immigrants lack insurance is that they are less likely to be offered health insurance by their employers.
-Over a modestly longer horizon &#8212; from 2001 to 2005 &#8212; Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment climbed from 11.2 percent of Americans to 13.0 percent. These increases helped to offset the reductions in employer-based coverage and kept the number of uninsured people from rising faster. Enrollment in these programs did not climb because of eligibility expansions; some states initiated Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility expansions in this period, but others scaled back eligibility.[7] Enrollment in the public programs rose because of the increase since 2001 in the number of people who are poor and the reduction in the number with employer-based health insurance.


Oh look an insulting, misleading, unconstructive racist bigoted piece of **** political cartoon. F*ck you, why don't you head back to the hannity forums and jack off to bald eagles and american flags you insidious liar. Read a book.

Uhm, tens of millions are uninsured. Hello? Is this thing on?



Yeah, high copays have done a really great job. (at disincentivizing people from going to the doctor and delaying care even more.)

Yes, it has nothing to do with a CYA obsessed swamp-like physician culture that encourages this kind of behavior. Physicians normally go out of their way to explain why that head CT really isn't necessary, but gosh darnit those patients are so powerful! Also, fee-for-service is not a problem at all, self-referrals are great, and doctors do nothing wrong. Malpractice claims account for less than 1% of a hospital's costs. Yeah, real big problems there.

Tort reform in Texas capped payouts for malpractice claims. Guess what? Doctors continue with CYA medicine unabated, and malpractice premiums rose spectacularly. Insurance companies making more money than ever. What a joke of a solution to the healthcare mess.

Doctors have to admit to their complicity in all of this lest we get absolutely no say in the eventual solution.

Really?

 

[ChiDO]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=663376

A discussion of the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402274.html

Written by Dr. Feldman, Jefferson Medical College, and his top 10 problems with Obama's bill.

 

[meister]

Yes ignore my request for you to provide evidence or actual arguments.

Also call the person actually providing evidence and coherent arguments childish, not the Hannity forum whacko posting lies about the uninsured and racist/xenophobic "political" cartoons.

One more time: what do you want to see? On what do you base your proposed solutions?
This should not be difficult.

 

[Concubine]

Yes ignore my request for you to provide evidence or actual arguments.

Also call the person actually providing evidence and coherent arguments childish, not the Hannity forum whacko posting lies about the uninsured and racist/xenophobic "political" cartoons.

One more time: what do you want to see? On what do you base your proposed solutions?
This should not be difficult.

You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone that is constantly spewing out hyperbolic rubbish and automatically dismissing everything anyone else says as FOX news propaganda.

 

[meister]

You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone that is constantly spewing out hyperbolic rubbish and automatically dismissing everything anyone else says as FOX news propaganda.

Well it's clear that everyone already knows that physician salaries are not going near $100k any time soon, especially not with any of the bills under consideration in congress. So this thread is just knee-jerk paranoia. I think that's clear.

Beyond that, though, is the general idea that government-run healthcare systems are dangerous or too expensive. Both of which are ridiculous. I have provided several examples of other systems that are 100% government-run that are much cheaper than our current hodgepodge. The nay-sayers arguing for tort-reform, higher copayments, or free markets have not offered one shred of evidence in support of their positions. Then you have some dolt who runs in here displaying racist political cartoons and literally spouting Fox talking points.

Who exactly is difficult to have a conversation with? Oh, and by the way, still waiting for that one example of a government-run healthcare system gone awry. (It doesn't exist. Don't bother looking. The only dangerous system is a for-profit privatized one.)

 

[meister]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=663376

A discussion of the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402274.html

Written by Dr. Feldman, Jefferson Medical College, and his top 10 problems with Obama's bill.

An improvement from your previous worthless post, at least. The problem with this particular doctor's 10 suggestions is that only one of them is directly related to the problem of the uninsured. He supports more regulation of private insurance companies, something which only an insane person would oppose. Ok, so we regulate them more, what exactly does he mean? How does this bring costs down? How does this cover the uninsured? He doesn't talk about any of this.

The rest of the op/ed discusses the MD shortage, tort reform, payment cuts, FDA reform and faster drug approval (both of which have little relevance to our current predicament), and improved quality of care. Well Medicare should definitely increase residency spots and do a better job there but other than that what the hell is he talking about? How is this related to John Doe who just got laid off and was recently diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma?

 

[Dr Oops]

Yes ignore my request for you to provide evidence or actual arguments.

Also call the person actually providing evidence and coherent arguments childish, not the Hannity forum whacko posting lies about the uninsured and racist/xenophobic "political" cartoons.

One more time: what do you want to see? On what do you base your proposed solutions?
This should not be difficult.

Even though I think youre a ****in idiot here are some of the things that can happen:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964V6P00&show_article=1&catnum=0

You dont provide any evidence, you showed two charts showing that the US spends more per capita and that was it. You then make up other numbers and claim that medicare and social security are doing just fine and other nonsensical bull****. Ive seen one post from you in this entire thread where you actually have a calm and rational argument, the rest is calling everyone fox news propagandists and you spewing your emotional garbage.

 

[meister]

Even though I think youre a ****in idiot

Lol.

here are some of the things that can happen:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964V6P00&show_article=1&catnum=0

Japan has a doctor shortage, hospitals are understaffed. This has little to do with access to care or government-run medicine. In fact, the irony here is that there are people like this every day in the US who die in the gutter due to having no insurance or an inability to pay their medical bills.

Again, evidence is something which substantiates an argument. The nay-sayers here are saying government-run medicine will kill patients, bring doctor salaries to or below $100k, or any number of other ridiculous arguments. I have seen zero evidence of any of this. (Because it doesn't exist.)

You dont provide any evidence, you showed two charts showing that the US spends more per capita and that was it. You then make up other numbers and claim that medicare and social security are doing just fine and other nonsensical bull****. Ive seen one post from you in this entire thread where you actually have a calm and rational argument, the rest is calling everyone fox news propagandists and you spewing your emotional garbage.

Medicare has the highest patient satisfaction level of any health insurance in the country. Social security is probably one of the most successful government programs in the US, again with extremely high levels of satisfaction. How is that nonsensical unless you are a nihilist who just hates all taxes and feels that living in a first-world nation where people don't die in the streets due in large part to compulsory taxation is THEFT?

I have posted two charts from an excellent Commonwealth Fund study. If you actually peruse their website, or perhaps the Kaiser Foundation's, you might see that national government-run health insurance would save us trillions of dollars and eliminate medically-related bankruptcies (half of US bankruptcies are due to illness/medical bills, and 70% of those people had health insurance!), as well as provide more equity in how we distribute care as a country.

But again, ignore everything I'm saying and just use the same rehashed talking points about government intrusion or taxation as theft or whatever. Cold War's over, Reagan's dead, trickle-down economics is a lie, and for-profit health insurance is a scam. Time to join the rest of the first world.

 

[Dr Oops]

Lol.

Japan has a doctor shortage, hospitals are understaffed. This has little to do with access to care or government-run medicine. In fact, the irony here is that there are people like this every day in the US who die in the gutter due to having no insurance or an inability to pay their medical bills.

did you even read the article? Its all about how these people cant even GET INTO the hospital to be seen. O wait this is a government run system too. The US system certainly has is problems that need to be addressed but at least those people would be alive to be able to go into bankruptcy.

By the way we treat life threatening illnesses regardless of ability to pay.

Again, evidence is something which substantiates an argument. The nay-sayers here are saying government-run medicine will kill patients, bring doctor salaries to or below $100k, or any number of other ridiculous arguments. I have seen zero evidence of any of this. (Because it doesn't exist.)

Medicare has the highest patient satisfaction level of any health insurance in the country. Social security is probably one of the most successful government programs in the US, again with extremely high levels of satisfaction. How is that nonsensical unless you are a nihilist who just hates all taxes and feels that living in a first-world nation where people don't die in the streets due in large part to compulsory taxation is THEFT?

I have posted two charts from an excellent Commonwealth Fund study. If you actually peruse their website, or perhaps the Kaiser Foundation's, you might see that national government-run health insurance would save us trillions of dollars and eliminate medically-related bankruptcies (half of US bankruptcies are due to illness/medical bills, and 70% of those people had health insurance!), as well as provide more equity in how we distribute care as a country.

But again, ignore everything I'm saying and just use the same rehashed talking points about government intrusion or taxation as theft or whatever. Cold War's over, Reagan's dead, trickle-down economics is a lie, and for-profit health insurance is a scam. Time to join the rest of the first world.

According to your evidence, the people who go bankrupt ever year from medical costs is .6%, just slightly over half a percent.

Well Im glad everyone loves medicare and Social security, wonder how satisfied they will be when those benefits dissolve because we cant afford them as a country. I for one am glad I got to pay those taxes for all those years and will never see anything from it, good job government!

I dont think taxes are theft. I do think that the government is a bunch of *****s, who do not understand healthcare and get caught up in just as much if not more bureaucracy as insurance companies.

To say that the government has been doing anything efficiently is laughable. Not only do we have the examples of medicare, social security, the post office, and the DMV; we have the failed massachusetts experiment.

You bitch and moan about evidence, but all you post is how expensive medical care is, everyone knows this. This evidence doesnt do anything to support or refute a government run system.

I perused the kaiser site and I saw nothing about saving trillions by having government run healthcare, please post that evidence instead of data showing me how expensive healthcare is.

Ive addressed all of your issues, while im fairly certain you didnt even read/address the article i posted, (if there is a shortage of doctors and hospitals under a government run system, isnt it the governments job to fix that?)

And I would stop saying how everyone rehashes that same talking points because thats all youve been doing.

 

[WellWornLad]

.

 

[meister]

did you even read the article? Its all about how these people cant even GET INTO the hospital to be seen. O wait this is a government run system too. The US system certainly has is problems that need to be addressed but at least those people would be alive to be able to go into bankruptcy.

By the way we treat life threatening illnesses regardless of ability to pay.

I assure you Japan does not have an epidemic of hospitals refusing to take on patients and people dying in the streets and people going into bankruptcy because they got cancer or lost their job due to a medical illness. That's only in the US. This isn't really in doubt so I'm curious why you're defending the US system at all. Do you think our current paradigm does a great job or something? If so then I don't think there's much I can persuade you with, short of just doing what the democrats should do and you realizing a decade from now that I was right. The dems should ignore the republicans, pass what poll after poll shows the American public wants, and reap the electoral benefits. That's what governing majorities are supposed to do, and sadly democrats again reveal themselves to be weak and spineless in spite of a 19 vote difference in the senate and 30+ vote difference in the house and the white house. It's amazing when you think about it.

Pass substantive healthcare reform, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, end the pharma giveaway in Medicare part D, eliminate SSI cap at $100k, restore tax rates on the wealthy to their level during Ronald Reagan's term. Damn I think I literally just solved like 90% of our problems.

Also they should do all of the budgetary maneuvers using reconciliation just like the GOP did with W's stupid stupid tax cuts in 2003.

According to your evidence, the people who go bankrupt ever year from medical costs is .6%, just slightly over half a percent.

Ok. One out of every 200 Americans goes bankrupt every year due to a medical illness. Do you not see something horribly wrong with that while simultaneously health insurance companies reap mega-profits and corporate executives make away with millions in compensation? Nothing?

Well Im glad everyone loves medicare and Social security, wonder how satisfied they will be when those benefits dissolve because we cant afford them as a country. I for one am glad I got to pay those taxes for all those years and will never see anything from it, good job government!

I dont think taxes are theft. I do think that the government is a bunch of *****s, who do not understand healthcare and get caught up in just as much if not more bureaucracy as insurance companies.

Of course government isn't fun, but for-profit companies are amoral profit-seeking machines. That's what they are supposed to be. That's why they should have no say in a decent healthcare system. That's why government is much more acceptable as an arbiter of health rationing than an amoral hodgepodge of rich people. Because rationing already happens!

And I assure you you will see your share of social security and Medicare when you turn 65. And I assure you you will appreciate it. And, unless you are a god at denial, you will realize that government can, in fact, do some things right.

To say that the government has been doing anything efficiently is laughable. Not only do we have the examples of medicare, social security, the post office, and the DMV; we have the failed massachusetts experiment.

But haven't we already acknowledged that Medicare and SSI enjoy high satisfaction ratings? And you have absolutely no evidence of the post office being more or less efficient than anything else? And the DMV is a state-run facility? And the "Massachusetts experiment" is simply an indidivudal mandate for private for-profit plans? MA taught us something. That if you mandate coverage for horrible high deductible plans, you can bring the uninsured down to 1-2%, but you get the highest premiums in the nation. Great work Romney! Thanks Kennedy!

Lastly, I'll simply point out that I am the only one who has actually provided any reputable sources for any of his claims. You have provided an anecdotal article about one patient's death due to hospitals being ******ed. This is not evidence. And I don't see why I should spend time giving you detailed analyses when nobody else seems to bother backing up their claims at all outside of using the standard rightist gut-think.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

You go meister.. haha. I think most of these guys here havent worked so they have no clue how the real world is.

 

[Concubine]

You go meister.. haha. I think most of these guys here havent worked so they have no clue how the real world is.

False.

 

[Dr Oops]

I assure you Japan does not have an epidemic of hospitals refusing to take on patients and people dying in the streets and people going into bankruptcy because they got cancer or lost their job due to a medical illness. That's only in the US. This isn't really in doubt so I'm curious why you're defending the US system at all. Do you think our current paradigm does a great job or something? If so then I don't think there's much I can persuade you with, short of just doing what the democrats should do and you realizing a decade from now that I was right. The dems should ignore the republicans, pass what poll after poll shows the American public wants, and reap the electoral benefits. That's what governing majorities are supposed to do, and sadly democrats again reveal themselves to be weak and spineless in spite of a 19 vote difference in the senate and 30+ vote difference in the house and the white house. It's amazing when you think about it.

Pass substantive healthcare reform, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, end the pharma giveaway in Medicare part D, eliminate SSI cap at $100k, restore tax rates on the wealthy to their level during Ronald Reagan's term. Damn I think I literally just solved like 90% of our problems.

Also they should do all of the budgetary maneuvers using reconciliation just like the GOP did with W's stupid stupid tax cuts in 2003.

Ok. One out of every 200 Americans goes bankrupt every year due to a medical illness. Do you not see something horribly wrong with that while simultaneously health insurance companies reap mega-profits and corporate executives make away with millions in compensation? Nothing?

Of course government isn't fun, but for-profit companies are amoral profit-seeking machines. That's what they are supposed to be. That's why they should have no say in a decent healthcare system. That's why government is much more acceptable as an arbiter of health rationing than an amoral hodgepodge of rich people. Because rationing already happens!

And I assure you you will see your share of social security and Medicare when you turn 65. And I assure you you will appreciate it. And, unless you are a god at denial, you will realize that government can, in fact, do some things right.

But haven't we already acknowledged that Medicare and SSI enjoy high satisfaction ratings? And you have absolutely no evidence of the post office being more or less efficient than anything else? And the DMV is a state-run facility? And the "Massachusetts experiment" is simply an indidivudal mandate for private for-profit plans? MA taught us something. That if you mandate coverage for horrible high deductible plans, you can bring the uninsured down to 1-2%, but you get the highest premiums in the nation. Great work Romney! Thanks Kennedy!

Lastly, I'll simply point out that I am the only one who has actually provided any reputable sources for any of his claims. You have provided an anecdotal article about one patient's death due to hospitals being ******ed. This is not evidence. And I don't see why I should spend time giving you detailed analyses when nobody else seems to bother backing up their claims at all outside of using the standard rightist gut-think.

oooo you can assure me, how scientific. Its idiotic to think that we can support a society of people who have the unhealthiest habits in the world by only taxing a select few. All other countries with government run medicine tax EVERYONE, even though their costs are less AND they still ration healthcare.

Who cares if people are highly satisfied with it, if its unsustainable it dont matter. I was highly satisfied with watching episodes of macguyver, but its over now and I dont get to enjoy it.

Youre right politicians are just as trustworthy as CEO's!

Im done explaining things to you all you do is spout liberal propaganda.

 

[meister]

You go meister.. haha. I think most of these guys here havent worked so they have no clue how the real world is.

I really don't know or care if they've worked, and there are certainly conservative arguments out there against a government-run option. But it's clear no one here really knows what those arguments are or can even provide me with examples.

I'm not going to do their homework for them, and I'm sure they'll continue with anti-government gut-think opinions anyway. Sad.

 

[thomasko]

Meister, how do you have time as a med student to constantly patrol and hijack all threads on SDN?

 

[tjaze]

"Medicare has the highest patient satisfaction level of any health insurance in the country. Social security is probably one of the most successful government programs in the US, again with extremely high levels of satisfaction. How is that nonsensical unless you are a nihilist who just hates all taxes and feels that living in a first-world nation where people don't die in the streets due in large part to compulsory taxation is THEFT?"

WOW. Are you sure you're a medical student? Of course the patients that get money from others are highly satisfied. Patients would be satisfied if we skipped rectal and pelvic exams, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Multiple sources, including the TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, have stated that medicare and social security are UNSUSTAINABLE. But you know more about finance than the treasury secretary, right?

People like you who don't have any respect for themselves and their profession are what's wrong with medicine today. They seem to equate intelligence with being liberal, and balk at a student who hopes to make a living equal to their education and time sacrificed. I AM NOT A SERVANT TO MY PATIENTS, AND I WILL NEVER BE A SERVANT. I AM A PHYSICIAN WHO WENT THROUGH DECADES OF TRAINING AND I SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND COMPENSATED AS SUCH.

 

[atengnr]

I really don't know or care if they've worked, and there are certainly conservative arguments out there against a government-run option. But it's clear no one here really knows what those arguments are or can even provide me with examples.

I'm not going to do their homework for them, and I'm sure they'll continue with anti-government gut-think opinions anyway. Sad.

In my view, the economics of having a government-run option will translate into rapid demise of private insurers. Will GM or Ford or other larger company offer their employees private insurance if theres a public option? They would be fools to. Goodbye private insurance.

What does this mean? That the government will rapidly have control of the system, on the basis of being essentially the only payer. Viola, a socialized system emerges pretty quickly.

Do I want this to happen? Nope, but I think it will.

 

[45408]

"Medicare has the highest patient satisfaction level of any health insurance in the country. Social security is probably one of the most successful government programs in the US, again with extremely high levels of satisfaction. How is that nonsensical unless you are a nihilist who just hates all taxes and feels that living in a first-world nation where people don't die in the streets due in large part to compulsory taxation is THEFT?"

WOW. Are you sure you're a medical student? Of course the patients that get money from others are highly satisfied. Patients would be satisfied if we skipped rectal and pelvic exams, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Multiple sources, including the TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, have stated that medicare and social security are UNSUSTAINABLE. But you know more about finance than the treasury secretary, right?

LOL, but BRO, people who get free money are SATISFIED! Don't you understand that? They put in $5 and get $20! They're thrilled!