Physician Salary Figures

[demayette]

Yes and yes.

But being a partner is not the reason for my income; we are a "eat what you kill practice". I work hard and am well compensated for that.

There are many market forces that make you well compensated. Working hard 'probably' play a role albeit a minor one...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Winged Scapula]

@Winged Scapula You said your income is higher than what was posted above; therefore, I was assuming you were talking about you net income. Even if your malpractice was 1 million dollars, if your net income is 400k; it is still your net income... My contention with you was that you were saying 'working hard' should justify your compensation... Many people in other professions work hard and don't enjoy that kind of salary.

Yes, I was talking about net income. My POV was that income averages are just estimates and its possible to exceed them. I am not here to derail this thread or to talk about specifics of my practice.

But "working hard" should be part of the reason to justify my income but its not the only reason. IMHO what the average person considers "working hard" does not compare to how I and my colleagues define it. I'm sure my vet works hard but given that she is not seeing patients at 7 am nor leaving the hospital at 815 pm, I would say it doesn't compare to the hours I work.

You also keep focusing on the "working hard" without considering the other issues. Regardless of whether I pay $1 or $1 million dollars for malpractice, I live with the daily reality of medical liability; not many other professions can say that. The audiologist is not waking up at 200 to take calls from patients or nurses. And while you may think it unfair to talk about the cost of education, you are almost singularly alone in that viewpoint: if medical school cost continues at its current upward trajectory, we will start losing the smart pre-meds who realize they can make more, by working fewer hours and with a lower cost of education. But until something gives I personally see nothing wrong with physicians who feel they deserve to make more because they work more hours on average than the typical American, train longer, spend more money to get their degrees, delay getting a salary, and take more responsibility and liability than almost any other profession.

Perhaps we can just agree to disagree and allow this thread to get back on topic.

 

[Winged Scapula]

There are many market forces that make you well compensated. Working hard 'probably' play a role albeit a minor one...

I'm frankly not sure what you're getting at.

I'm in private practice.

My income is ENTIRELY based on how many patients I see and operate on.

 

[demayette]

I am not saying it's unfair to talk about the cost of education... I, myself, would not go to med school if did not see good ROI... I agree with you that the profession will lose talented individuals with the current trajectory of cost... I just think that was a naive statement to make: 'I work hard and am well compensated for that' when working hard has very little to do with your compensation--hence you derm example...

 

[demayette]

I'm frankly not sure what you're getting at.

I'm in private practice.

My income is ENTIRELY based on how many patients I see and operate on.

If HMO cut reimbursement by 75% tomorrow, will you be making as much even if you double you patient load?

 

[Winged Scapula]

If HMO cut reimbursement by 75% tomorrow, will you be making as much even if you double you patient load?

C'mon you're being ridiculous about this.

Ok, I make money because someone pays me.

If they decide not to pay me, I don't make any money.

You win. It has absolutely nothing to do with how hard I work, or the risks I take. (NB: I'll still make more than someone else who sees fewer patients even with a 75% reduction).

 

[bc65]

My contention with you was that you were saying 'working hard' should justify your compensation... Many people in other professions work hard and don't enjoy that kind of salary

It's true that some work harder than doctors and earn less. Usually, those people have less education, and are in fields requiring less overall abilities. Those with scarcer abilities, such as athletes and entertainers, earn more. That's basic economics. And some are in the right place at the right time and become CEOs of big companies and make millions. But when all is said and done, few people have a greater combinations of hard work, stress, and ultimate life and death responsibility than surgeons do. That's one reason they make more than your phD friends. It's also easier to get into phD programs, for most fields. Further, once you calculate the training and study time, the loans, low salary in residency, and opportunity costs, and length of career, surgeons don't actually make that much more than many lower paid jobs over the course of their careers . See the book "informed consent" by Brown ( you'll find excerpts online ) for some calculations demonstrating this in detail.

The phD s you're referring to didn't take call, didn't have the stress and responsibility of trying to save trauma patients in the middle of the night, don't get sued for malpractice, and probably didn't pay tuition for their graduate degrees. If they're in the humanities, they teach a few hours a week for 9 months a year. That's another reason they get paid less.

Have you started your clinical rotations yet? Are you seriously going to compare the life of a surgeon to that of an audiologist, and tell me that an audiologist "works hard"?

If HMO cut reimbursement by 75% tomorrow, will you be making as much even if you double you patient load?

This comment makes no sense to me. the question you should ask is, if reimbursement doubles tomorrow, would you still be working hard? The answer is yes. You can't be a surgeon in private practice and not work hard. And I've held a lot of jobs in my life, and done real hard physical labor, and being a surgeon is harder.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I am not saying it's unfair to talk about the cost of education... I, myself, would not go to med school if did not see good ROI... I agree with you that the profession will lose talented individuals with the current trajectory of cost... I just think that was a naive statement to make: 'I work hard and am well compensated for that' when working hard has very little to do with your compensation--hence you derm example...

The reason I responded that way was because the other user assumed that because I was a partner I earned more.

My point was, and my only point, was that I wasn't well compensated because I was a partner (because @W19 was assuming I make money off a non-partner physician employee) but because I see a lot of patients.

I never said that working hard was the only reason I was well compensated, but was trying to simplify. Thank you for the continued insults directed at me.

Any rate, I'm going to bed.

 

[demayette]

Have you started your clinical rotations yet? Are you seriously going to compare the life of a surgeon to that of an audiologist, and tell me that an audiologist "works hard"?
This comment makes no sense to me. the question you should ask is, if reimbursement doubles tomorrow, would you still be working hard? The answer is yes. You can't be a surgeon in private practice and not work hard. And I've held a lot of jobs in my life, and done real hard physical labor, and being a surgeon is harder.

I gave an example of cardiologist who is working harder than he was ten year ago to make less than 2/3 of what he was making... People keep throwing around 'they work hard; therefore, they deserve to make what they are making'. Do you think derm physicians an average work harder than hospitalists?

 

[demayette]

C'mon you're being ridiculous about this.

Ok, I make money because someone pays me.

If they decide not to pay me, I don't make any money.

You win. It has absolutely nothing to do with how hard I work, or the risks I take.

Like they are not cutting reimbursement! You should talk to some radiologists who are doing twice the reading for less pay....

 

[W19]

@Winged Scapula demayette has this habit of coming into the allo forum occasionally to start arguments over anything... I am shocked his insult was not directed at another poster that he/she has shown disdain for because of a previous argument about Ebola.

 

[bc65]

Do you think derm physicians an average work harder than hospitalists?

I agree that in the case of derm, market forces apply and distort salaries. I referred to that in my post above, were I stated "Those with scarcer abilities, such as athletes and entertainers, earn more. That's basic economics.". In the case of derm, there are limited derm spots, no doubt because that's how dermatologists like it, and so you need rare abilities, namely high board scores, to get those spots. Hence the higher salary. But in general, the harder working, longer trained specialists in medicine tend to get paid more. But if the point you were making is that overall, physicians are not being paid primarily because of their value, but rather due to market forces, yes, I would agree with that. That's always true. That's why NFL quarterbacks get paid so much. There are 32 teams, and only the best 32 quarterbacks in the world get to be starting quarterbacks each year, so they get paid a lot. There's only a few hundred top CEOs , so they get paid a lot, but less than quarterbacks. There's a lot more surgeons, so they get paid even less. It's a lot easier to be a teacher, and easier to go to school to be a teacher, so there are a lot more teachers and teachers get paid less. And when the barrier to entry and skills needed are at the very bottom of the scale, you get minimum wage.

I am sure some vets, audiologists work hard as well and their average composition do not come close to that of physicians...

I think this is the part that got me, and Winged Scapula, upset. If you wanted to say that primary care works harder than derm and gets paid less , and used that as an example of hard work not being directly compensated, then yes, I would agree. But when you imply that audiologists are working as hard as surgeons, that will irritate me, as a surgeon. ( no offense to the audiologists ). But anyone in private practice will tell you that their salary depends on how hard they work. Of course the scale of pay will depend on overall compensation rates, but where you fall based on that scale will depend on your hard work and management skills.

 

[Chipster.]

Like they are not cutting reimbursement! You should talk to some radiologists who are doing twice the reading for less pay....

Alright:

1. You're insufferable on these forums. What is the point of starting this ridiculous argument with a well respected surgeon, moderator, and contributor to SDN over semantics? Which leads me to my second point...

2. @Winged Scapula is a surgeon. In this scenario we're working under the assumption that she gets compensated relatively well for her work. That's not what this discussion was about until you decided to derail things. In her line of work, which we've already established has a much higher income ceiling than other professions, she is payed more relative to her peers because she works hard. Not every private practice partner makes her salary because not every partner works as many hours or does as many procedures. That is what she meant by her statement. How you are unable to understand something so simple is beyond me.

Let this one go, ok?

 

[fancymylotus]

for those interested in psych, my dad's 3 days a week PP grossed 240k last year

For those interested in dentistry our practices grossed...ah forget it.

 

[fancymylotus]

@Winged Scapula demayette has this habit of coming into the allo forum occasionally to start arguments over anything... I am shocked his insult was not directed at another poster that he/she has shown disdain for because of a previous argument about Ebola.

Agreed. And being outright insulting. I'm surprised he/she hasn't turned bright blue yet

 

[Psai]

I am not saying it's unfair to talk about the cost of education... I, myself, would not go to med school if did not see good ROI... I agree with you that the profession will lose talented individuals with the current trajectory of cost... I just think that was a naive statement to make: 'I work hard and am well compensated for that' when working hard has very little to do with your compensation--hence you derm example...

Working hard has everything to do with compensation. We work hard in college, medical school, residency and practice. The fact that money comes through the hands of third parties doesn't mean that it's any less deserved. What a ridiculous argument. Also working for the same number of years doesn't mean that you're working the same number of hours or that those hours have the same amount or kind of work. You don't know jack about the work that cardiologists, surgeons, radiologists, dermatologists, audiologists or veterinarians do. I don't know why you keep putting up these examples as if you knew what you were talking about. Sounds like another bright eyes first year ready to work for free and save the world. All that happens when doctors get paid less is that executives and managers get paid more

 

[PatsyStone]

feel free to move there

I don't see what the issue is: basically every industrialized nation and many middle-income nations have national health care systems while we don't. Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia all demonstrate that maintaining high physicians salaries while providing health care for all citizens is not mutually exclusive. Although I would be happy to live in Canada, it makes more sense for my country to join the rest of the international community by creating universal health care

 

[Aloft085]

I don't see what the issue is: basically every industrialized nation and many middle-income nations have national health care systems while we don't. Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia all demonstrate that maintaining high physicians salaries while providing health care for all citizens is not mutually exclusive. Although I would be happy to live in Canada, it makes more sense for my country to join the rest of the international community by creating universal health care

All of those countries also had monarchies when we did not. Should we have joined them then as well? Popular does not equal right. I would prefer to not give the government any more control over my life than they already have. If it wasn't for all of the people intent on some form of government-run healthcare, we could perhaps get some needed reforms through Congress.

 

[jl lin]

Not to mention those nations aren't nations of >300 million and growing. Ideologically, they don't walk the same tightrope to protect individual and collective liberty either. Of course, after recent years, well, one wonders when that rope will break and we will fall into the pit of the masses. That's when socialism looks it's best.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I don't see what the issue is: basically every industrialized nation and many middle-income nations have national health care systems while we don't. Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia all demonstrate that maintaining high physicians salaries while providing health care for all citizens is not mutually exclusive. Although I would be happy to live in Canada, it makes more sense for my country to join the rest of the international community by creating universal health care

Well I cannot comment on Canada or the Netherlands I would argue with you that Australian physicians do not generally have as high of an income, even giving a favorable exchange rate, as their American compatriots do.

 

[demayette]

Alright:

1. You're insufferable on these forums. What is the point of starting this ridiculous argument with a well respected surgeon, moderator, and contributor to SDN over semantics? Which leads me to my second point...

2. @Winged Scapula is a surgeon. In this scenario we're working under the assumption that she gets compensated relatively well for her work. That's not what this discussion was about until you decided to derail things. In her line of work, which we've already established has a much higher income ceiling than other professions, she is payed more relative to her peers because she works hard. Not every private practice partner makes her salary because not every partner works as many hours or does as many procedures. That is what she meant by her statement. How you are unable to understand something so simple is beyond me.

Let this one go, ok?

I thought she was talking about physician compensation in general--not her particular field; that was the reason I felt I had to say something. I have seen that sentence thrown around a lot here along with many other nonsense... I apologize to @Winged Scapula because I missed the context of her statement...

 

[demayette]

All of those countries also had monarchies when we did not. Should we have joined them then as well? Popular does not equal right. I would prefer to not give the government any more control over my life than they already have. If it wasn't for all of the people intent on some form of government-run healthcare, we could perhaps get some needed reforms through Congress.

I agree that the US government already have some control over our lives, but not to the extent that many Americans think... As a future physician, I like the insurance system (not the healthcare system) the way it is now just for financial reason... A question that no one is willing to answer is that: What do insurance companies bring to the table when it comes to healthcare? An intermediary that take people's money and pass some of it to providers--just that! Are they selling a product? They are not offering anything while they are enjoying astronomical profit... I understand physicians indirectly support them because they are the last brick wall that prevent liberal democrats or government from taking over healthcare, but if we gonna be honest with ourselves here, we must admit insurance companies bring almost nothing to the table...

 

[PatsyStone]

Not to mention those nations aren't nations of >300 million and growing. Ideologically, they don't walk the same tightrope to protect individual and collective liberty either. Of course, after recent years, well, one wonders when that rope will break and we will fall into the pit of the masses. That's when socialism looks it's best.

Canada and Australia, much like the United States, have historically been predominantly Caucasian, but in the past several decades, all three countries have received a steady flow of immigrants, particularly from non-European nations. I'm also sure any Canadians or Australians reading your statement will find it hilarious that you assume their countries do not value "individual and collective liberty."

Having live in Western Europe for several years as an adult, I will say that socialism is not necessarily a bad thing, and having lived in both systems, I do not understand why Americans treat it like a four-letter word. I think skepticism of nationalization is valid, but when essentially every other industrialized nation has nationalized their health care system, and their results are much better than ours, I think it is indicative that at least in this field, nationalization is not necessarily a bad thing.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yk98ct/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1

 

[PL198]

@Winged Scapula... Like I said, I am not questioning your work ethics... Heck, from reading reading some of your posts, I am guessing you might be a surgeon... To be honest, I won't do your job for even a million bucks. There are a lot force at play that make people in healthcare get well compensated... For instance, I spoke to an interventional cardiologist that told me he used to make 700k+/year in the late 90s, now he is working twice as hard to clear 450k/year... CMS can decide to cut reimbursement tomorrow and most HMO will do the same. Physicians will be still be working hard to earn less.

As for training, people who have PhD spend 10+ years an average to get they degree... Their salary an average is lot lower than physicians... I can give you another example that is close to home... My spouse got a 3-year ADN at a CC with ZERO loan and made 101k last year working 48 hrs/wk average... I am sure my spouse work hard to make that, but there are people with longer training year who work harder than my spouse who don't even dream making 6-figure...

My point is that many careers in healthcare are hot commodities in the US... We should stop throwing around longer training years/student debt/'working hard' etc... to justify compensation...

lol @ PhD and working hard. sitting in a lab and having some undergrad do grunt work while you screw around with something no one cares about.

 

[PL198]

I gave an example of cardiologist who is working harder than he was ten year ago to make less than 2/3 of what he was making... People keep throwing around 'they work hard; therefore, they deserve to make what they are making'. Do you think derm physicians an average work harder than hospitalists?

you realize there are other factors besides how hard you work at present. did he avg person matching into derm work harder than the avg person matching in IM when they were in school? yeah absolutely. seriously your posts are beyond naive where you're just scraping for anything to justify your viewpoint.

 

[PL198]

I don't see what the issue is: basically every industrialized nation and many middle-income nations have national health care systems while we don't. Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia all demonstrate that maintaining high physicians salaries while providing health care for all citizens is not mutually exclusive. Although I would be happy to live in Canada, it makes more sense for my country to join the rest of the international community by creating universal health care

no. or we could do as we see fit, and you could leave and join the other countries if you think their system is so superior. just arbitrarily doing something because other people do is literally the dumbest reason I've ever heard to support a policy change. None of them are composed anything like the US.

 

[PL198]

I agree that the US government already have some control over our lives, but not to the extent that many Americans think... As a future physician, I like the insurance system (not the healthcare system) the way it is now just for financial reason... A question that no one is willing to answer is that: What do insurance companies bring to the table when it comes to healthcare? An intermediary that take people's money and pass some of it to providers--just that! Are they selling a product? They are not offering anything while they are enjoying astronomical profit... I understand physicians indirectly support them because they are the last brick wall that prevent liberal democrats or government from taking over healthcare, but if we gonna be honest with ourselves here, we must admit insurance companies bring almost nothing to the table...

are you high? you're telling me you don't understand the fundamental principle of insurance? go get a quad bypass and tell me insurance companies bring nothing to the table

seriously the things you said in this thread are a new level of naive, surpassing pre-med. why the hell do you think people buy insurance if it does nothing for them

 

[demayette]

are you high? you're telling me you don't understand the fundamental principle of insurance? go get a quad bypass and tell me insurance companies bring nothing to the table

seriously the things you said in this thread are a new level of naive, surpassing pre-med. why the hell do you think people buy insurance if it does nothing for them

I dont understand the fundamental principle of health insurance COMPANIES... Do they have any skin in the game?

My point was that you can give that premium to the government like many other countries that can pass it on to providers without making a profit?

 

[Mad Jack]

agree with above
MGMA is quite accurate if you are talking private practice...otherwise may seem inflated

MGMA is correct, people just don't understand it properly. MGMA is total compensation, while Medscape is salary. Total compensation includes benefits (retirement, vacation, CME, sick time, etc) which usually account for around 25-30% of a compensation package. This is why the figures appear inflated- for, say, IM, people see a total comp of 224k on MGMA and a salary figure of 188k on Medscape, but the MGMA report includes 44k of benefits on top of salary and pegs starting salary for IM at 180k. Compensation is not equal to pay.

 

[Mad Jack]

They bring the same thing to the table that they do in every other market. To minimize risk of financial catastrophe. We buy home insurance in case there is a flood. We buy disability insurance in case we have an injury and can no longer practice medicine. We buy car insurance in case we get rear-ended. We buy life insurance in case we die. We buy apple care in case our laptop breaks. We buy health insurance in case we get sick.

The trouble is, health insurance doesn't function like that, and therein lies the problem we have with the current US health care system. Here's the old, tired analogy of "if car insurance covered gas, oil, brakes, tires, etc, then car insurance premiums would be spiraling out of control as well." Health insurance was designed poorly- we should have a system that covers actual catastrophic expenses (hospital admissions, major surgeries and procedures) and leaves the basic things (inexpensive prescription drugs, primary care visits, minor tests, etc) alone, then couple that with tax-sheltered HSAs that don't expire each year and can accumulate cash for when health care expenses do arise.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh, and sorry to drop a third post on your thread, but if you're looking for a picture of starting salaries at graduation, here's the MGMA's most recent report of starting physician pay that excludes compensation and only includes salary, as summarized by the AAMC: https://www.aamc.org/download/399576/data/startingsalariesforphysicians.pdf

Because it only includes newly employed physicians, you can get an idea of what your salary will be like, rather than typical salary reports that are averaged between the high and low earners.

 

[Mad Jack]

That's a separate question though about what the ideal health insurance policy would be, rather than the fundamental purpose of insurance.

I do think for most people a catastrophic plan, where you actually paid the cash value for minor services would be preferable. However this would also incur additional risk for providers (i.e. I'm a lot more sure I'm going to get paid by Blue Cross for my services than if I'm having to track down individual bills from every client...erm I mean patient).

The fundamental purpose of insurance is to insure against an unexpected loss. I doubt that most people would consider the cost of a PCP visit to be an unexpected loss- it's just a thing that happens every 6-12 months. Routine care falling under the umbrella of insurance is against the very foundation of what insurance is supposed to do.

 

[PL198]

I dont understand the fundamental principle of health insurance COMPANIES... Do they have any skin in the game?

My point was that you can give that premium to the government like many other countries that can pass it on to providers without making a profit?

Do you seriously understand how insurance works? It prevents you from having the world dropped on you. You don't frequently utilize it to its full capacity, but when you do, it bails you out. I don't know how this is a difficult concept for you to understand. They're not in business to lose money.

 

[PL198]

But the problem with health insurance is that you have essentially everyone paying into it and only a few pulling out of it to any substantial degree (i.e. the people with health catastrophes or needing major elective procedures). So the other stuff started getting covered in order to give people a tangible benefit from what they were putting into it.

It also helps incentivize utilization of the health system, medication compliance, etc. If people had to pay out of pocket (more than a copay I mean) for every visit, they would just stop going to the doctor until that catastrophe hit.

well thats what happens when you're not allowed to charge more for existing conditions and etc. who knew that companies that specialize in risk analysis weren't allowed to employ it and instead had to distribute that excess risk over their entire clientèle. such a joke.

 

[BobbyB]

For those interested in dentistry our practices grossed...ah forget it.

feel free to embarrass us all

at this point in our careers, we should be at the acceptance stage of grief haha

 

[demayette]

Do you seriously understand how insurance works? It prevents you from having the world dropped on you. You don't frequently utilize it to its full capacity, but when you do, it bails you out. I don't know how this is a difficult concept for you to understand. They're not in business to lose money.

I don't think you get it... 30% of the premium collected goes into administrative cost... You can give that premium to the government that can pass it on to providers... The government is not in it to make a profit...

 

[Mad Jack]

But the problem with health insurance is that you have essentially everyone paying into it and only a few pulling out of it to any substantial degree (i.e. the people with health catastrophes or needing major elective procedures). So the other stuff started getting covered in order to give people a tangible benefit from what they were putting into it.

It also helps incentivize utilization of the health system, medication compliance, etc. If people had to pay out of pocket (more than a copay I mean) for every visit, they would just stop going to the doctor until that catastrophe hit.

This is why I think that the incentive should be provided differently. Have employers pay a percent of salary into HSAs (money that would easily be available given how much cheaper catastrophic plans are than comprehensive health insurance), so that that money is there should the person need it. It can't be tapped for anything else, so the incentive is to use it, because you can't touch it anyway. As to not seeing a tangible benefit, I don't ever see a tangible benefit from my renter's insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, or car insurance- you're not supposed to see a benefit until disaster strikes, and then you're thankful you have it.

 

[Chipster.]

I don't think you get it... 30% of the premium collected goes into administrative cost... You can give that premium to the government that can pass it on to providers... The government is not in it to make a profit...

Is this why the interest rates on federal loans for med school are so low? Because the government would never try and make money at the expense of its hardworking citizens, right?

 

[demayette]

Is this why the interest rates on federal loans for med school are so low? Because the government would never try and make money at the expense of its hardworking citizens, right?

Are you seriously comparing PAYING healthcare premiums to BORROWING money to get a degree?

 

[Stagg737]

I don't think you get it... 30% of the premium collected goes into administrative cost... You can give that premium to the government that can pass it on to providers... The government is not in it to make a profit...

Yes, a large portion of 'administrative costs' being the salary of employees and paying for offices, equipment etc. If you put the government in control those costs don't just go away. They still have to pay employees and pay for resources. Saying the gov isn't in it to make a profit is possibly the most naive statement I've seen on this site...

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't think you get it... 30% of the premium collected goes into administrative cost... You can give that premium to the government that can pass it on to providers... The government is not in it to make a profit...

Except for the fact that if the government is totally in control of healthcare, then healthcare becomes nothing but an expense in their eyes. Republicans want to cut, cut, cut, while liberals think we're overpaid, and down go our salaries. Sure, the government isn't in it to make a profit, but they're also not in it to pay us fairly either, as demonstrated by Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that don't even compensate enough to pay for the expenses of many medical services.

 

[demayette]

Yes, a large portion of 'administrative costs' being the salary of employees and paying for offices, equipment etc. If you put the government in control those costs don't just go away. They still have to pay employees and pay for resources. Saying the gov isn't in it to make a profit is possibly the most naive statement I've seen on this site...

Why is medicare administrative cost is only 4% while insurance companies are in the 30%?

 

[PL198]

I don't think you get it... 30% of the premium collected goes into administrative cost... You can give that premium to the government that can pass it on to providers... The government is not in it to make a profit...

So the government doesn't have administrative costs either? LOL who is going to have more administrative costs, a private company or the government?

You're teeing these up for me.

 

[PL198]

Why is medicare administrative cost is only 4% while insurance companies are in the 30%?

everyone knows that's a lie and based on BS

 

[demayette]

Except for the fact that if the government is totally in control of healthcare, then healthcare becomes nothing but an expense in their eyes. Republicans want to cut, cut, cut, while liberals think we're overpaid, and down go our salaries. Sure, the government isn't in it to make a profit, but they're also not in it to pay us fairly either, as demonstrated by Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that doesn't even compensate enough to pay for the expenses of many medical services.

I agree with you that the government does not want to pay us fairly? As for MCR/MCD reimbursements, we all know people in MCD do not pay any premium (that money come from government) and the ones in medicare use healthcare the most since they are older... If young people are paying premiums and they barely use the system, maybe the government will have enough money to increase reimbursement... Canadian physicians do ok...

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree with you that the government does not want to pay us fairly? As for MCR/MCD reimbursements, we all know people in MCD do not pay any premium (that money come from government) and the ones in medicare use healthcare the most since they are older... If young people are paying premiums and they barely use the system, maybe the government will have enough money to increase reimbursement... Canadian physicians do ok...

Canadian politics are very different than American politics. They're proud of their healthcare system and there isn't much fighting between the well off and the poor like there is in our country, nor is their government as polarized as ours. You're advocating handing a system as complex as US healthcare over to a bunch of lunatics that can't even agree on what minor circuit judge to appoint. That won't go over well.

As to premiums, yes, they do pay premiums, and they also paid into the system during their working life. Medicare costs you a monthly fee on top of the 2.9% of your salary you (and everyone else) pay every paycheck for your working life.

 

[Stagg737]

Canada and Australia, much like the United States, have historically been predominantly Caucasian, but in the past several decades, all three countries have received a steady flow of immigrants, particularly from non-European nations. I'm also sure any Canadians or Australians reading your statement will find it hilarious that you assume their countries do not value "individual and collective liberty."

Having live in Western Europe for several years as an adult, I will say that socialism is not necessarily a bad thing, and having lived in both systems, I do not understand why Americans treat it like a four-letter word. I think skepticism of nationalization is valid, but when essentially every other industrialized nation has nationalized their health care system, and their results are much better than ours, I think it is indicative that at least in this field, nationalization is not necessarily a bad thing.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yk98ct/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1

The cost of medical school in most of those countries is also a fraction of the cost in the U.S., sometimes even free for all citizens. If you nationalized healthcare here physician compensation would inevitably drop due to our high population with high demand for medical care. Additionally with the physician shortage each physician will literally have thousands of patients (assuming specialists start seeing patients for primary care as well).

What do you think would happen if you decrease compensation to a career where individuals require 7-10 years of post-undergrad training to work excessive hours and come out of school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt? Very few people will want to go into that field and there would be an even greater stress on the system from both the patient and physician standpoint.

Can universal care work? Obviously yes because other countries have it and it works. Can universal care work in the U.S.? Not right now, or maybe ever and there are literally dozens of reasons why.

 

[Stagg737]

Why is medicare administrative cost is only 4% while insurance companies are in the 30%?

Do you have a non-biased, independent, non-government source for that figure?

Besides, with the inefficiency of medicare as a system I'd rather have an organization spend a little more on administrative costs and review of care to create better treatment plans than just charge the populace more to give unwarranted or unnecessary treatments.

 

[Aloft085]

I agree that the US government already have some control over our lives, but not to the extent that many Americans think... As a future physician, I like the insurance system (not the healthcare system) the way it is now just for financial reason... A question that no one is willing to answer is that: What do insurance companies bring to the table when it comes to healthcare? An intermediary that take people's money and pass some of it to providers--just that! Are they selling a product? They are not offering anything while they are enjoying astronomical profit... I understand physicians indirectly support them because they are the last brick wall that prevent liberal democrats or government from taking over healthcare, but if we gonna be honest with ourselves here, we must admit insurance companies bring almost nothing to the table...

The idea of an insurance company is to spread risk. So that if you develop a rare one in a million disease, you get the cutting edge treatment you need due to the premiums of other insured individuals who did not get sick. Unfortunately it's far more complex in practice, partially due to regulation, and partially due to the fact that individuals have significant control over whether or not they develop certain health-related conditions. It's not quite like other types of insurance.

So yes, I agree that we should be highly critical of the present model. However, I would argue that insurance companies of some form or fashion will always be needed. Otherwise, your health savings account (or whatever you use) would be rapidly depleted in the event of catastrophic illness.

 

[demayette]

Canadian politics are very different than American politics. They're proud of their healthcare system and there isn't much fighting between the well off and the poor like there is in our country, nor is their government as polarized as ours. You're advocating handing a system as complex as US healthcare over to a bunch of lunatics that can't even agree on what minor circuit judge to appoint. That won't go over well.

As to premiums, yes, they do pay premiums, and they also paid into the system during their working life. Medicare costs you a monthly fee on top of the 2.9% of your salary you (and everyone else) pay every paycheck for your working life.

I don't want the system to change at all... Trust me on that! As for our political system, I agree with you and that's why I don't vote in national and statewide elections. I wanted to argue that government control of healthcare is not inherently bad; it might be difficult here because of politics...

As for medicare premium, I know we pay into that, but what most of us pay over our working years won't be enough to cover our health are cost when we get older, so that's when the youngsters come into play to alleviate that burden... If the government collect REGULAR premium from every working people that will somehow take care of the astronomical cost of the people who use healthcare the most... As for physician pay, I know it's popular for liberal democrats to say they get paid too much... That in itself is another debate...