Physician Salaries - below 100K

[killinsound]

As an observer reading along through this tread, I would say he definitely read everything you wrote. I can't say the same for you though.

I will also agree.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[USArmyDoc]

You didn't really read anything I said did you?

You are getting old.

 

[rysa4]

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


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.

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.

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.


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

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?

1. Taxes in countries that have socialized medicine in Europe run at 50%. Thats good for hospital care in a ward system with no private rooms as wel as rationing in which some patients do not qualify for things like dialysis and chemotherapy that is considered too expensive for the individual . The individual sacrifices for the whole. Specialist care in an office is out of pocket often times.

2. tax Dollars and health insurance premium dollars are not at all the same. One is based on market forces and the other is based on supporting growing waste.
3. Private Insurance does not throw the majority of sick and expensive patients out. There is clearly the occasional horror story but I work with cancer patients every single day ensuring their care and I have never seen one patient get thrown out of any insurance plan just because they are sick. I have been in Medicine for 20 years at this point.

4. Bringing everyone into Medicare would raise costs and take money away from senior citizens who have paid taxes for Medicare their entire working lives after 1965. Have you considered what the premium would be for a govt run health plan? Lets do a little math; Current Medicare Part B premiums run between 92 and 185 a month depending on income. We know a plan that would include hospital benefits would be more, and hospital costs exceed outpatient part B costs. The monthly premium for a 40 year old no smoking male could easily be $400 a month, and the penalty structure indicates this as well. The current employee premium for my group is 384 a month and the employer pays all of it--its free to the employees.

5. Private insurance can expand globally and already is- Medicare cannot. Private insurance companies are profitable- Medicare is losing money.Private insurance pays doctors more, medicare pays doctors less.

6. Decreased tax revenue is occurring due to increasing unemployment and lack of real wage growth-- a lot of this can be traced to government mismanagement.

7. Tenncare is an example of government run healthcare gone awry.

8. What is needed is insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry reform,, not another VA.

YMMV

 

[susanspy]

Hello all, What the hell you are talking about under 100k thats not possible it should be minimum 500 for me, what say people? Cheres!!!

 

[meister]

Help me understand why we differ here.

Well, it seems as though the only difference is that you would entrust the insurance companies and private industry and I would rather trust the government. I think the private sector's performance in the past 30 years speaks for itself.

If the GOP grew a pair of nuts and really wanted to do the Right Thing they'd be screaming to set up non-profit insurance companies and institute some sort of price control mechanism, as in Switzerland or Germany. And the democrats would be having a debate on whether they want an NHS style system or a Canadian style system. And if we actually had a functioning democracy the democrats would pass whatever the hell they wanted since they control 60+% of the federal government.

Instead people are calling Obama Joker-Hitler-Stalin, screaming about his czars (are they really that ******ed?), and democrats are acting as if a non-profit plan run by the feds will really do anything to control costs. The sad truth is that none of the bullsh*t being said in DC is going to change anything.

We'll still have for-profit insurance companies with monopolies, we'll still have uninsured people, we'll still have huge disparities in access between the rich and the poor, we'll still have fraud and waste, and we'll get the added benefit of thousands of people being forced to pay a ridiculous fine because they don't want to participate in the for-profit insurance company bail-out.

It disgusts me.

 

[meister]

Also after some reflection I'm not sure TheProwler's plan regarding an HSA would be that terrible and would likely be better than our current sytem. The article in The Atlantic on HSA accounts was interesting.

 

[DrJD]

Also after some reflection I'm not sure TheProwler's plan regarding an HSA would be that terrible and would likely be better than our current sytem. The article in The Atlantic on HSA accounts was interesting.

My wife and I had a HSA for a year and at first it was kind of hard to get used to having to pay 150 bucks for a doctors appointment, but honestly, it turned out to be a great experience. You really learn to value your medical time, and really do think twice before paying for an appointment for a "cold" or anything else trivial. All the while, we knew we were covered with a relatively small annual out of pocket maximum. I think the entire country should switch over to HSA's... They would be upset the first time they have to actually pay when they leave the docotors, (Oh my gosh, paying someone for their service?!), but eventually they would grow to like it as their HSA grew...

HSA for all =

 

[DrJD]

Well, it seems as though the only difference is that you would entrust the insurance companies and private industry and I would rather trust the government. I think the private sector's performance in the past 30 years speaks for itself.

The private sector has done amazing things for the heatlhcare in our country. If you actually talk to doctors anywhere in the US near Canada they'd be happy to tell you about all of their patients that come over from Canada for their services because they are "better doctors." You are right, it does speak for itself, and I would rather get sick in America than any other country in the world.

If the GOP grew a pair of nuts and really wanted to do the Right Thing they'd be screaming to set up non-profit insurance companies and institute some sort of price control mechanism, as in Switzerland or Germany. And the democrats would be having a debate on whether they want an NHS style system or a Canadian style system. And if we actually had a functioning democracy the democrats would pass whatever the hell they wanted since they control 60+% of the federal government.

Instead people are calling Obama Joker-Hitler-Stalin, screaming about his czars (are they really that ******ed?), and democrats are acting as if a non-profit plan run by the feds will really do anything to control costs. The sad truth is that none of the bullsh*t being said in DC is going to change anything.

We'll still have for-profit insurance companies with monopolies, we'll still have uninsured people, we'll still have huge disparities in access between the rich and the poor, we'll still have fraud and waste, and we'll get the added benefit of thousands of people being forced to pay a ridiculous fine because they don't want to participate in the for-profit insurance company bail-out.

It disgusts me.

Wait a minute, you are saying that rich people will be able to purchase more/better goods in America? Wow, that is just wrong... Perhaps there should be some form of insurance that allows those of us with less money to purchase better stuff than we can afford. I mean, I can't afford to purchase 200 dollar bottles of wine, that doesn't seem "fair" does it? Therefore, they should be provided to me.

Come on! Of course people with more money can afford better/more healthcare. The services of doctors are a good in the marketplace. I don't care how poor you are in America, if you are sick and walk into a hospital, they will treat you. That is pretty good access considering you dont' have any money if you ask me.

Oh and one more thing, it really makes me mad when people like you decry "Disparities in access." For a good united healthcare insurance plan where I live it is between 100 and 150 dollars a month for family health insurance. People say, "We can't afford it!!!" But then every member of their family have cell phones, they have the premium cable TV package, and huge rims for their car. So just because they would rather have cool electronics than health care we are all supposed to provide it to them through our tax money!?

The mentally disabled, disadvantaged, and truly poor, ie homeless need someone to look after them and I think that the government should do a better job at taking care of these, and I would be happy if my tax dollars went towards that. But paying for healthcare for those who choose not to purchase it, no thank you.

 

[meister]

Wait a minute, you are saying that rich people will be able to purchase more/better goods in America? Wow, that is just wrong... Perhaps there should be some form of insurance that allows those of us with less money to purchase better stuff than we can afford. I mean, I can't afford to purchase 200 dollar bottles of wine, that doesn't seem "fair" does it? Therefore, they should be provided to me.

Health care is a bottle of wine. Yeah, that about sums up your argument.

I don't care how poor you are in America, if you are sick and walk into a hospital, they will treat you. That is pretty good access considering you dont' have any money if you ask me.

Try harder at defending our current system. I'm sure you'll change a lot of minds doing that.

 

[DrJD]

Health care is a bottle of wine. Yeah, that about sums up your argument.

Actually yes, it does. Healthcare = good or service. Astute observation.

Try harder at defending our current system. I'm sure you'll change a lot of minds doing that.

I don't really need to, the statistics speak for themselves. That is if you look at the actual details of the statistics, rather than just the numbers thrown around by democratic law makers.

As a disclaimer to others: While defending the current system, everyone agrees that things can be improved, IE record system and paper work, cleaning of waist and abuse, etc.

 

[meister]

That is if you look at the actual details of the statistics, rather than just the numbers thrown around by democratic law makers.

Why not back up what you're saying and provide some of these wonderful statistics?

 

[DrJD]

Why not back up what you're saying and provide some of these wonderful statistics?

Sure thing! I'll post them later when I am on a different computer...

 

[Concubine]

Actually yes, it does. Healthcare = good or service. Astute observation.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Oh and one more thing, it really makes me mad when people like you decry "Disparities in access." For a good united healthcare insurance plan where I live it is between 100 and 150 dollars a month for family health insurance. People say, "We can't afford it!!!" But then every member of their family have cell phones, they have the premium cable TV package, and huge rims for their car. So just because they would rather have cool electronics than health care we are all supposed to provide it to them through our tax money!?

Dude, I am generally on your side here, but this is flat-out wrong. Please point me to where you are purchasing an individual family health insurance plan (subscriber, spouse, at least one child) for $150 per month (= $1800/yr). The cheapest plans that I've found are 3-4X that with high deductibles ($5000,) 80% coverage (for healthy members, no pre-existing conditions, etc)

If there really is such an insurance plan, I'd love to hear about it so that I could use it myself, but if you are just making those numbers up, please stop because it cheapens your argument.

 

[Food]

Why does nobody acknowledge that the private sector is inherently evil? Sure, the government might be inherently evil too, but so is the private sector. And we don't elect anybody in the private sector. The amount of faith that people put in capitalism can be matched only by the stupidity of people willing to put up with socialism. Both systems are inherently flawed and extreme in their own rights.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

http://www.arkansasbluecross.com/LookingForInsurance/IndividualAndFamilies/default.aspx

Comprehensive Blue PPO for
27 year old Individual + Spouse + 1 Child:
$1000 deductible, $2000 maximum annual out of pocket
Cost: 224.43 per Month

Ahhh, there's the disconnect.

We (spouse and I) are older. Obviously, cost goes up with age. I double-checked my numbers through bcbs and they are still good.

So, I can see that that figure ($150/month) is probably appropriate for a family of "traditional" medical student age, but the premium rises with age. All the more reason not to argue, "Insurance is so cheap...I pay $xxx per month -- that's cheap!"

 

[DrJD]

Ahhh, there's the disconnect.

We (spouse and I) are older. Obviously, cost goes up with age. I double-checked my numbers through bcbs and they are still good.

So, I can see that that figure ($150/month) is probably appropriate for a family of "traditional" medical student age, but the premium rises with age. All the more reason not to argue, "Insurance is so cheap...I pay $xxx per month -- that's cheap!"

Using the website that mydodger quoted, for a family of 5 with the parents 41 and 40, the monthly payments would be 203 dollars, with a 5,000 dollar deductibile with $30 copay for office visits. That is NOT expensive. So I'm not sure how old you are talking, but you have to remember, it is insurance. IE, they are insuring your health. A risk factor for bad health is age, so of course as you age it will cost more to insure your health. Just like automobile drivers who have accidents have to pay more for auto insurance.

Either way, health insurance can be found for even cheaper that the one quoted above if you are purely wanting to insure against crazy disasters. So now, I still think it is cheap, especially when you consider how much more money people pay for useless crap.

PS.
If you up the age in the above scenario to 50 and 51 with 2 kids, the monthly premium is $257 dollars, of course by then your kids will soon be on their own plan so it will drop some more.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

Using the website that mydodger quoted, for a family of 5 with the parents 41 and 40, the monthly payments would be 203 dollars, with a 5,000 dollar deductibile with $30 copay for office visits. That is NOT expensive. So I'm not sure how old you are talking, but you have to remember, it is insurance. IE, they are insuring your health. A risk factor for bad health is age, so of course as you age it will cost more to insure your health. Just like automobile drivers who have accidents have to pay more for auto insurance.

Either way, health insurance can be found for even cheaper that the one quoted above if you are purely wanting to insure against crazy disasters. So now, I still think it is cheap, especially when you consider how much more money people pay for useless crap.

PS.
If you up the age in the above scenario to 50 and 51 with 2 kids, the monthly premium is $257 dollars, of course by then your kids will soon be on their own plan so it will drop some more.

Watch how quickly that number changes, however, if you, your wife, or your 3 kids have *any* health problems. Then watch how they refuse to insure you at all for conditions that you've had that have cost insurance companies very little in the past when you've had other coverage.

I'm 34, and I'm lucky to have insurance affiliated with the school, because private insurers would not insure me. Mind you, I am healthy, but I have a "pre-existing condition" that disqualified me from any coverage whatsoever with two separate large insurers.

 

[DrJD]

Watch how quickly that number changes, however, if you, your wife, or your 3 kids have *any* health problems. Then watch how they refuse to insure you at all for conditions that you've had that have cost insurance companies very little in the past when you've had other coverage.

I'm 34, and I'm lucky to have insurance affiliated with the school, because private insurers would not insure me. Mind you, I am healthy, but I have a "pre-existing condition" that disqualified me from any coverage whatsoever with two separate large insurers.

Two things... First, I never said I supported the exclusion of pre-existing conditions. But yes, if you have health problems it will cost more to insure you. That is just common sense, for the same reason age costs more.

Second thing, is that there are a couple of ways to fix the pre-existing condition problem.
A. You could downright just make it illegal, which I don't agree with really, but if it were to pass I would be okay with it.
B. If you were to allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines, then that increased competition would mean that insurance companies would have to compete to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

Honestly though, if either of the above happens I'd be happy. If B came true, then there wouldn't be "pre-existing" conditions. There would just be conditions. Why? Because you could get on insurance and use it for your whole life because you could take it across state lines. (And yes, there is a problem with the employer backed insurance, but that is a whole other problem.)

I'm sorry you couldn't get insured through the two large private insurers though, unfortunately a product of the regulation currently on insurance companies. However, I am glad you were able to get it through the school!

 

[45408]

Why does nobody acknowledge that the private sector is inherently evil? Sure, the government might be inherently evil too, but so is the private sector. And we don't elect anybody in the private sector. The amount of faith that people put in capitalism can be matched only by the stupidity of people willing to put up with socialism. Both systems are inherently flawed and extreme in their own rights.

I don't acknowledge that it's inherently evil because I don't think it is. Why is it and why would it be?

I think it's focused on profit. They'll sell anything to anyone who will buy it. If you don't want it or need it, don't buy it. Don't know if you need it? Get a second opinion or have a third party evaluate it for you.

 

[45408]

Also after some reflection I'm not sure TheProwler's plan regarding an HSA would be that terrible and would likely be better than our current sytem. The article in The Atlantic on HSA accounts was interesting.

this one? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care/6

I read part of that article last month, but I didn't see his HSA segment. Pretty insightful stuff:

Some experts worry that requiring people to pay directly for routine care would cause some to put off regular checkups. So here's a solution: the government could provide vouchers to all Americans for a free checkup every two years. If everyone participated, the annual cost would be about $30 billion—a small fraction of the government's current spending on care.

Today, insurance covers almost all health-care expenditures. The few consumers who pay from their pockets are simply an afterthought for most providers. Imagine how things might change if more people were buying their health care the way they buy anything else. I'm certain that all the obfuscation over prices would vanish pretty quickly, and that we'd see an end to unreadable bills. And that physicians, who spend an enormous amount of time on insurance-related paperwork, would have more time for patients.

In fact, as a result of our fraying insurance system, you can already see some nascent features of a consumer-centered system. Since 2006, Wal-Mart has offered $4 prescriptions for a month's supply of common generic medications. It has also been slowly rolling out retail clinics for routine care such as physicals, blood work, and treatment for common ailments like strep throat. Prices for each service are easily obtained; most are in the neighborhood of $50 to $80. Likewise, "concierge care," or the "boutique" style of medical practice—in which physicians provide unlimited services and fast appointments in return for a fixed monthly or annual fee—is beginning to spread from the rich to the middle class. Qliance Medical Group, for instance, now operates clinics serving some 3,000 patients in the Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, areas, charging $49 to $79 a month for unlimited primary care, defined expansively.

 

[280224]

Why does nobody acknowledge that the private sector is inherently evil? Sure, the government might be inherently evil too, but so is the private sector. And we don't elect anybody in the private sector. The amount of faith that people put in capitalism can be matched only by the stupidity of people willing to put up with socialism. Both systems are inherently flawed and extreme in their own rights.

I agree with Prowler... there's nothing inherently evil about the private sector, which is based purely on voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. How exactly is that evil?

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

Two things... First, I never said I supported the exclusion of pre-existing conditions. But yes, if you have health problems it will cost more to insure you. That is just common sense, for the same reason age costs more.

Second thing, is that there are a couple of ways to fix the pre-existing condition problem.
A. You could downright just make it illegal, which I don't agree with really, but if it were to pass I would be okay with it.
B. If you were to allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines, then that increased competition would mean that insurance companies would have to compete to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

Honestly though, if either of the above happens I'd be happy. If B came true, then there wouldn't be "pre-existing" conditions. There would just be conditions. Why? Because you could get on insurance and use it for your whole life because you could take it across state lines. (And yes, there is a problem with the employer backed insurance, but that is a whole other problem.)

I'm sorry you couldn't get insured through the two large private insurers though, unfortunately a product of the regulation currently on insurance companies. However, I am glad you were able to get it through the school!

Whether or not individuals can get insurance with pre-existing conditions has nothing to do with state lines. The problem is that if the insurance company underwriters determine that the individual or family is going to cost them more than the premiums they can charge, they will not insure them. That means every single company competing in that location will make the same determination, and that individual will not receive insurance from anyone. Think about it: If you're an insurance company, you make your money on the difference between premiums and claims. If you know for certain that any one individual will always result in paying more in claims than premiums, you will not insure that individual. That's cherry-picking, and that's how the insurance companies stay profitable.

If insurance companies were forced to insure everyone, irrespective of pre-existing conditions, you can bet that those self-insured premiums are going to rise substantially, as everyone is forced to subsidize those with high claims. So you can kiss those low premiums goodbye. If, on the other hand, you expect them to compete for a customer that is going to cost them money, you're just deluding yourself.

The point everyone is missing here is that the health insurance industry is not a typical efficient market in the classic economic sense. It's not like the car insurance industry where I, as a consumer, can make a rational decision to reduce my risk by driving more safely, buying a safer car, etc. There are some who can change their risk factors for health problems, but many others just face the luck of the draw. If you're comfortable having those individuals receive inadequate care (such as ED care only), then you can be in support of a completely private approach to this. But know that if there is only private industry behind health insurance, the profit motive *dictates* that certain people will not be covered.

I agree with Prowler... there's nothing inherently evil about the private sector, which is based purely on voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. How exactly is that evil?

Wow, how frighteningly naive.

 

[Concubine]

Why does nobody acknowledge that the private sector is inherently evil? Sure, the government might be inherently evil too, but so is the private sector. And we don't elect anybody in the private sector. The amount of faith that people put in capitalism can be matched only by the stupidity of people willing to put up with socialism. Both systems are inherently flawed and extreme in their own rights.

You know, I agree there are a lot of problems, but with the private sector, you at least have competition to keep things somewhat in check. Can't say the same for government.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

You know, I agree there are a lot of problems, but with the private sector, you at least have competition to keep things somewhat in check. Can't say the same for government.

This isn't even a matter of trusting one or the other. If you define your goal as ensuring that anyone with a catastrophic illness has access to a reasonable quality of care, private industry will not satisfy your goal. Whether or not you trust the government, it's apparent that the government is the *only* entity that can reach that goal. I don't trust the government to run anything well, and would prefer private industry whenever possible, but I can recognize that private industry ain't gonna solve this one. The government is the only option we have for reaching this goal.

If that's not your goal, that's fine. But at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're willing to accept that shortcoming of a private system. If that is your goal, however, you can't in good faith argue that the private system can ever accomplish it.

 

[rysa4]

If you define your goal as ensuring that anyone with a catastrophic illness has access to a reasonable quality of care, private industry will not satisfy your goal. Whether or not you trust the government, it's apparent that the government is the *only* entity that can reach that goal. .

This is not a goal of the government in reality. It would actually be less expensive for the government to simply buy insurance for the poorest 10 million uninsured in the country and have the various private payors compete for this huge contract on benefits and simply set the price. The contract would also include a provision, at a higher price, that guarantees availability of purchasable insurance for anyone else. Split the baby between two private payors ( or more) to keep it honest.

Based on the FEP program and Walmart ( the largest single party insurance contracts in the country), a 10 million person contract could be had for about 200 dollars a month, or 24 billion a year, or 240 billion in 10 years, plus include an option for those more able to afford a policy to purchase one at a slightly higher but reasonable price point.

Is it as simple as I am laying it out? Nope. Its not. But its an idea in the right direction.

 

[45408]

Wow, how frighteningly naive.

Well, don't elaborate or anything

 

[jl lin]

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

So then RNs like me that make $80,000 should make less? Now not all do make that--it depends on experience, specialty--particularly for working in critical care--off shift--loads of weekends and 12 hour and often enough 12hour plus shifts, holidays, rotating, and basically working in a predominantly catty field. The added stress of the horizontal and sometimes vertical violence can truly be unreal--adding unnecessary insult to injury. I truly do hate to say that--and it isn't always so--but often enough, well, sadly it is.


I'm not going to become a physician b/c of money alone. I don't believe most people do that. It's kind of silly when you think about it. MBA programs are generally tougher programs today than in decades past perhaps, but it's still not as tough as the road to medicine. So, for six figures or more, if money were the issue, getting an MBA will get you more bang for your buck and your time.

No. It's about loving what you do--even when it is incredibly stressful. But such time and sacrifice and cost has to be reasonably compensated. $80,000 to 100,000 is just not going to cut it for most post-residency physicians. By any reasonable market standards, it just doesn't make sense.

Sure there may be some money hungry greedy docs out there. But most physicians want a reasonable income for the time and commitment they've put into it. And there is nothing immoral, unethical, unspiritual or other thing wrong with that.

It IS a HUGE financial and life commitment. To have to pay say > $30, 000 - $40,000 or more in undergrad and pre-med, then pay over $150,000 for med school plus many other fees along the way and thereafter, and then to not be compensated fairly is insane.

I know family practice docs that are busting hump, are as tired as all get out--and are feeling the stress of practice and the insurance pinch--as well as pinches from a great deal of other things, They are totally frustrated--especially when they are only making $120 ish per year. They've got bills beyond their school loans, which are enormous enough (mortgage payments for these school loans).

So, heck no. $80,000 - $100,000 per year is not enough post residency.
Dear Lord. . .

 

[Hoody]

So then RNs like me that make $80,000 should make less? Now not all do make that--it depends on experience, specialty--particularly for working in critical care--off shift--loads of weekends and 12 hour and often enough 12hour plus shifts, holidays, rotating, and basically working in a predominantly catty field.

You make 80K with an associate's degree? doubt it....unless you are working nights, weekends, every holiday possible, have worked for 20+ years and are located in an area with astronomical cost of living (even then, I highly doubt 80K). I work nights, weekends, I have a bachelor's degree, my ccrn, years of experience, plus I work for the big guy (aka government). I don't make 80K. Most nurse practitioners with a masters don't even make 80K.

You're either fudging your numbers (hey, its okay, we all do) or you need to post a link to your employer so me and my fellow coworkers can apply (here all this time we thought we had it good).

 

[Concubine]

You make 80K with an associate's degree? doubt it....unless you are working nights, weekends, every holiday possible, have worked for 20+ years and are located in an area with astronomical cost of living (even then, I highly doubt 80K). I work nights, weekends, I have a bachelor's degree, my ccrn, years of experience, plus I work for the big guy (aka government). I don't make 80K. Most nurse practitioners with a masters don't even make 80K.

You're either fudging your numbers (hey, its okay, we all do) or you need to post a link to your employer so me and my fellow coworkers can apply (here all this time we thought we had it good).

RN is usually not an associate's degree, I think you mean LPN.

 

[Hoody]

RN is usually not an associate's degree, I think you mean LPN.

Unfortunatley those with associate degrees can have an RN license (sad, I know). We actually sit for the same test (NCLEX). RN-ADN and RN-BSN are the technical tittles, however most people only see the RN part. Theoretically those with bachelors degrees are the ones who are promoted, in charge and eligible for continuing education (i.e. a masters degree).

The poster I responded to says in her profile that she is an RN-ADN enrolled in a program that will allow her to obtain a bacthelors. There are NO ADN nurses that make even close to what she claims....Unless like I said earlier, you work nights, weekends, holidays, OT, have 20+ years experience, multiple certifications and live in a pricey area. Even then you'd have to do some major extra curricular activities with the boss man to make 80K.


LPN is reserved for those who fail to complete the nursing program (i.e. drop out after first year). I first got my LPN between my junior and senior years of school (so I could work the floor) and I took it at a community college that offers a 2 year ADN program. The class was three days and a national board test. I'm not sure but there might be some like 10-15 month LPN programs out there for people with NO nursing background.

 

[45408]

You make 80K with an associate's degree? doubt it....unless you are working nights, weekends, every holiday possible, have worked for 20+ years and are located in an area with astronomical cost of living (even then, I highly doubt 80K). I work nights, weekends, I have a bachelor's degree, my ccrn, years of experience, plus I work for the big guy (aka government). I don't make 80K. Most nurse practitioners with a masters don't even make 80K.

You're either fudging your numbers (hey, its okay, we all do) or you need to post a link to your employer so me and my fellow coworkers can apply (here all this time we thought we had it good).

It's actually not that hard. My wife is an RN (which can be an associates degree - she has a BSN, but many of her co-workers, who are paid the same, just have the ASN), and her base rate is $27/hr after being there 3 years. PM shifts have a $2.25 differential (added to base rate), $3.50 for nights, and an additional $1.50 on weekends. She would only need to work about 45-50 hours a week to hit $80,000 a year. Not to mention that if you get called in from home, you get $50 for coming in, and they get paid $40-50/hr once they're there.

And this is at the largest health care employer in the state.

 

[45408]

RN is usually not an associate's degree, I think you mean LPN.

I'd say at least a third, if not half, of the nurses in all the local hospitals just have an associates. Their nametags usually say BSN if they have their BSN.

 

[Hoody]

It's actually not that hard. My wife is an RN (which can be an associates degree - she has a BSN, but many of her co-workers, who are paid the same, just have the ASN), and her base rate is $27/hr after being there 3 years. PM shifts have a $2.25 differential (added to base rate), $3.50 for nights, and an additional $1.50 on weekends. She would only need to work about 45-50 hours a week to hit $80,000 a year. Not to mention that if you get called in from home, you get $50 for coming in, and they get paid $40-50/hr once they're there.

And this is at the largest health care employer in the state.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just said that it was highly unlikely, which it is. Anyway, I took your 27 per hour and made it 32 just for fun...that would still only be 61K. So yeah, that would be a lot of overtime and don't forget that too much OT means more tax which can actually cause you to make less than you would normally (yeah, been there, done that).

Again, not arguing that it's not possible, but its definitely, definitely not the norm.

 

[45408]

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just said that it was highly unlikely, which it is. Anyway, I took your 27 per hour and made it 32 just for fun...that would still only be 61K. So yeah, that would be a lot of overtime and don't forget that too much OT means more tax which can actually cause you to make less than you would normally (yeah, been there, done that).

Again, not arguing that it's not possible, but its definitely, definitely not the norm.

Did you miss the part where I said 45-50 hours a week? That would be the overtime. If you actually took 50 hours/week for 50 weeks at $32/hr with OT, that would be $88,000. Secondly, the "making more means I actually made less" only bears out on a single paycheck, not over an entire year. Once you've done your taxes at the end of the year, you'll see that you're getting it back.

And you said:

unless you are working nights, weekends, every holiday possible, have worked for 20+ years and are located in an area with astronomical cost of living (even then, I highly doubt 80K).

Which is practically arguing that it's not possible. Besides, a nurse can do things like place PICC lines on nights/weekends, which my wife also does, which pays a LOT more than floor nursing.

 

[rysa4]

You make 80K with an associate's degree? doubt it....unless you are working nights, weekends, every holiday possible, have worked for 20+ years and are located in an area with astronomical cost of living (even then, I highly doubt 80K). I work nights, weekends, I have a bachelor's degree, my ccrn, years of experience, plus I work for the big guy (aka government). I don't make 80K. Most nurse practitioners with a masters don't even make 80K.

You're either fudging your numbers (hey, its okay, we all do) or you need to post a link to your employer so me and my fellow coworkers can apply (here all this time we thought we had it good).

The range for NPs is 80,000 -110,000. I know since I hire them.

 

[Hoody]

Did you miss the part where I said 45-50 hours a week? That would be the overtime. If you actually took 50 hours/week for 50 weeks at $32/hr with OT, that would be $88,000. Secondly, the "making more means I actually made less" only bears out on a single paycheck, not over an entire year. Once you've done your taxes at the end of the year, you'll see that you're getting it back.

And you said:

Which is practically arguing that it's not possible. Besides, a nurse can do things like place PICC lines on nights/weekends, which my wife also does, which pays a LOT more than floor nursing.

Actually you started out with 27/hr. I said 32 because I was being generous with your shift differentials. And now we are up to 50hrs a week plus OT?? Right. I stand by what I said. RNs making 80K a year is not the norm. RN-ADNs making 80K is most definitly not the norm.

The range for NPs is 80,000 -110,000. I know since I hire them.

Good for you but thats not the range everywhere. all you have to do is search for jobs to know this. I am also a nurse and I also work with NPs so its not like I dont know anything.

Source 1
Source 2 - can be customized to salary, hour, experience, etc. 20 years experince and you might be making 80K, otherwise, its highly unlikely and definitly not the norm (otherwise me and all my coworkers could be making 80k, and we arent).

These souces may not be the most up to date or accurate, but far closer to reality than what you guys are trying to portray. And like I said, search for jobs and see what they are offering.

For the record, Im not trying to get in a flame war, or argue that doctors shouldnt make a bunch of money. All Im saying is that 80K for a RN is not the norm and you shouldnt be saying that doctors should get more money because nurses get 80K. Doctors should get more money because of many things, but not because people think nurses get paid 80K.

 

[rysa4]

Good for you but thats not the range everywhere. all you have to do is search for jobs to know this. I am also a nurse and I also work with NPs so its not like I dont know anything.
.

yes it is. Nurse practitioners are paid $80,000 - $110,000. The Vast majority are. I'm paid to know this stuff as an FYI; it's part of my job and I work with national headhunters all of the time. Some of the info is public. So, for instance, you can look up Md Anderson's NP and PA salaries because its a public institution. ( None are paid below 90K) Same with most/all state funded hospitals. ( You can also look up physician salaries as well)

A new grad from NP school MIGHT start at $70,000, but that would be very low. No NPs work below 70k. Our last one was about $85K, and now she has a higher paying job elsewhere. keep in mind this didn't include her annual bonus, which was not small.

Your being a nurse doesn't seem to qualify you to know much about the business aspects of health care frankly.

 

[Hoody]

yes it is. Nurse practitioners are paid $80,000 - $110,000. The Vast majority are.

Not according to the sources I posted above (guess you missed those huh?). Not according to Salary.com. Not according to jobs listed on career finder sites. Not according to the pay scale here at my facility. Not according to any of the NPs I asked.


I would love it if NPs made what you are quoting but the truth is that they don't. Just like RNs (and especially not RN-ADNs) don't usually average 80K. I would love to make 80K. I would also love to make 80K-110K if I were an NP. So would all my colleagues.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
The percentages in bold below are based on 6,162 responses...."9. If full time, what is your current annual salary (including bonuses and call pay, but not including nonmonetary benefits) as paid by your primary employer? $81,397 average - the low end of what you have quoted.
Source 4



.....if you want more, google it yourself.

 

[LadyLightning20]

Oh jesus how am I not surprised that someone who thinks insurance companies are great and Ayn Rand is a real author is in "the OC bubble." Get the **** out of Irvine dude before you lose your humanity completely.

Dude, I grew up in Irvine and I'm a flaming liberal. Don't hate on us!

 

[Concubine]

Thoughts on the latest version of the bill & how it will impact salaries? I'm guessing the private sector will only be able to compete for so long & a few years down the road they will die out.

 

[MossPoh]

Not according to the sources I posted above (guess you missed those huh?). Not according to Salary.com. Not according to jobs listed on career finder sites. Not according to the pay scale here at my facility. Not according to any of the NPs I asked.


I would love it if NPs made what you are quoting but the truth is that they don't. Just like RNs (and especially not RN-ADNs) don't usually average 80K. I would love to make 80K. I would also love to make 80K-110K if I were an NP. So would all my colleagues.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
The percentages in bold below are based on 6,162 responses...."9. If full time, what is your current annual salary (including bonuses and call pay, but not including nonmonetary benefits) as paid by your primary employer? $81,397 average - the low end of what you have quoted.
Source 4



.....if you want more, google it yourself.

Are you seriously arguing with a person whose job it is to hire these people and deal with this stuff on a daily basis? You think posting online salary survives with questionable data is really solid evidence? You aren't a definitive sample size. I know TONS of nurses making near the 80k mark. They work hard and get tons of OT but they are still in the 80k area. This is also in an area where the associates degrees are the standard since nobody wants to live there. I mean, we all know that google is the end all be all of reliable data but come on...

 

[rysa4]

Thoughts on the latest version of the bill & how it will impact salaries? I'm guessing the private sector will only be able to compete for so long & a few years down the road they will die out.

I will only speak for Oncology. The CMS announcements were formally made today for the year 2010.

1. Radiation Oncology is facing fairly steep cuts. Possibly 20%.
2. Medical Oncology is not entirely clear, but the AMA practice expense survey data has been set aside in favor of a specialty specific practice expense formula. Best guess by me is a 6% cut in infusion services.
3. Consultation codes are eliminated but non-consultative codes will increase by about 1 -2%. This is an overall loss of 1% to medical oncology for consultative services.
4. Oncology Drugs - will continue at the current ASP + 6% formula for physician office. However, they are being pulled from the general physician service data pool which should improve the overall situation across all specialties, but may place buy and bill capability for physicians at risk in the future ( this is an opinion only by me).

Effect on my practice as it pertains to jobs and benefits - difficult to project. I look at total potential decrease in revenue and balance it with positive factors in expense reduction already in place. We are still growing in service volume with new relationships. Most services but not all have a profit margin. It will tougher to make a dollar but I expect to maintain or increase both staffing and benefits.

 

[rysa4]

Are you seriously arguing with a person whose job it is to hire these people and deal with this stuff on a daily basis? You think posting online salary survives with questionable data is really solid evidence? You aren't a definitive sample size. I know TONS of nurses making near the 80k mark. They work hard and get tons of OT but they are still in the 80k area. This is also in an area where the associates degrees are the standard since nobody wants to live there. I mean, we all know that google is the end all be all of reliable data but come on...

Thanks. This poster's info, (Hoooby or whatever), is an important example of a primary lesson from medical school which I have carried with me. Learn to say " I Don't Know" and " I was wrong."

Our practice is currently looking for an additional oncology infusion nurse. According to Hooby I guess I am paying too much. So feel free to PM me if you know anyone.

All kidding aside, here's how it looks in general for nurses;

1. Hospital Shift RN's - high degree of variance. But usually 40 to 50K.
2. Certificate of Added Qualification Nursing ( such as an OCN). Usually 60K-75K base salary. I interviewed one from California recently who was making 93K ( verified). Another one from the East Coast I interviewed was making 75K.
3. NPs and PAs- usually 80K to 110K. Keep in mind NPs can practice quasi-independently in most states. The term "noctor" which I learned here, is not far off. Baylor College of Medicine has a PA school so any of the students that attend there or UT-Houston could just ask their PA friends what they are being offered first year out. It is rare to find anything below 70K for a new grad. experienced NPs are highly sought after because practices can bill for their services in a way that is similar to physicians.

This is just how the market is. I have no emotional beef or anything in all of this, and am just clarifying what I know to be factually true, staying on my base of knowledge.

 

[DrJD]

Did you guys see this article?

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_plans.html

Apparently, the "public option" will cost more than private insurance in the national exchange. Ouch! Of course Pelosi doesn't lead with that during her speech

Also, from what I can tell it looks like if it does pass, which I am doubting it, then physicians will have the option to opt out of accepting it if it pays too little. Or, accept patients as "out of network." Thoughts?

 

[meister]

My thoughts are that it will do nothing to lower costs, will cost middle class families up to 30% of their income, and is a thinly veiled give-away to insurance companies.

Dems fail once again to deliver relief to the middle class, I won't be surprised if the GOP lies their way into becoming the party of the middle class.

How the dems let the rich walk all over them is really disgusting to watch.

 

[Concubine]

My thoughts are that it will do nothing to lower costs, will cost middle class families up to 30% of their income, and is a thinly veiled give-away to insurance companies.

Dems fail once again to deliver relief to the middle class, I won't be surprised if the GOP lies their way into becoming the party of the middle class.

How the dems let the rich walk all over them is really disgusting to watch.

Definitely a half-ass job. By trying to please everyone they will please no one.

 

[rysa4]

Did you guys see this article?

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_plans.html

Apparently, the "public option" will cost more than private insurance in the national exchange. Ouch! Of course Pelosi doesn't lead with that during her speech

Also, from what I can tell it looks like if it does pass, which I am doubting it, then physicians will have the option to opt out of accepting it if it pays too little. Or, accept patients as "out of network." Thoughts?

A government run health care plan as partially laid out is similar to a glue trap for mice and bugs. Once its laid out if you go near it you are stuck for good.

 

[45408]

politicians fail once again to deliver

Fixed that for you. As soon as politicians start making decisions based on "How can I get myself re-elected?" rather than "What would actually benefit the citizens the most?" then we start down the same old road.

 

[docONcall]

Possibly under $100 K post residency?

Nope, never going to happen. It will stay as six-digit salary. Don't worry.