U.S. Physicians are paid far more relatively than in any other country.

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

Also it's just as effective as the European system

P.S. Europe consists of about 50 sovereign states, each unique. There is no "European system." Just compare Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

Second, I would like you to close your eyes for a moment and imagine that Obama is announcing the establishment of a 9% compulsory payroll deduction to fund healthcare. One can almost hear the aneurysms that would burst like rotten fruit all across the country.

You wouldn't need to establish any new taxes, my goal would be to replace the existing programs with healthcare savings accounts funded by the same tax revenues. You could cut taxes and make this happen.

P.S. Europe consists of about 50 sovereign states, each unique. There is no "European system." Just compare Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland

They have very similar systems. Germany and Britain may be a little more centralized than France and Switzerland, which still have a robust system of private insurance for the well to do, but a massive system of government intervention in healthcare is a mainstay of the entire continent and its associated Islands. The similarities outweigh the differences.

Originally Posted by badasshairday

US Nurses, Businessmen, Engineers make more relative to their counterparts in any other country!

This!

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

They have very similar systems. Germany and Britain may be a little more centralized than France and Switzerland, which still have a robust system of private insurance for the well to do, but a massive system of government intervention in healthcare is a mainstay of the entire continent and its associated Islands. The similarities outweigh the differences.

Germany actually has a pretty distinct system from the UK. The NHS is both an insurance provider and a care provider, although it sometimes outsources some of the care. Getting private insurance gives you access to the private sector. Germany's healthcare is separate from its national and private insurance. You can opt out of public insurance, but still access the same type of care, just with different insurance.

It might seem academic, but it means the government has much more control over standards of care, treatment, lederhosen-related injuries and wages. Still, German physicians apparently hate their system, and UK physicians get paid more. Judging just from Medgadget, there seems to be more innovation in Germany.

TL;DR, the op is trolling.

German physicians may hate their system, but what about the general public?

Anyway, from articles I've read, apparently the hatred in Germany comes from cronyism and Chairs of Depts siphoning federal funds and private donations that are supposed to be used for healthcare and hospital development, into their own pockets.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

Sure you can blame the cost of medical education but doing that is not going to change the mess of unaffordable healthcare in the country. The obvious solution is to simply not attend high cost schools but obviously the drive for prestige & success won't let that happen (see law school) and these students will just end up being disgruntled and a detriment to the profession.

This is one aspect of the astronomical US healthcare costs that will surely be addressed to get back in line with OECD averages, so expect salaries to go down significantly. Please just don't incessantly whine about this when you're a doc, you should know what you're going into.

Not sure if this beating a dead horse here, but none of this really shows the opportunity costs of becoming a doctor. A couple of generations ago, my impression was that the best and brightest went into engineering, physics or medicine, and got a job working at GE or MMM. Finance was mostly for people with connections or guys that were just incredibly business savvy. Now, the best and the brightest are recruited into banking, consulting, maybe upper tier law schools (of course, that's the East Coast; maybe on the West Coast the dream is to become a millionaire by writing a program that makes your photos look washed out and crappy). Medicine is still mildly appealing for the high-achievers that realize they have this attachment to their soul, for the time being.

We can get away with this now because as a country we can import and finance the engineers and basic scientists from South Asia and the Middle East, even some parts of Europe. If things keep going the way they are with physician wages, that's whats going to happen to doctors. Then the developing countries will become developed, realize they can finance their healthcare with their own bubbles and insane financial products, and we'll be stuck with adequate, but kinda mediocre healthcare for the majority of Americans, while super wealthy go to Dubai Presbyterian Hospital for their advanced robotic surgeries.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

You wouldn't need to establish any new taxes, my goal would be to replace the existing programs with healthcare savings accounts funded by the same tax revenues. You could cut taxes and make this happen.

I'm not sure I understand your plan. Currently we cough up a portion for Medicare and then pay for private health insurance if we can afford it (which is usually contingent on our employers offering it). Doing it "Singapore style" would require increasing the payroll deduction beyond what Medicare currently deducts, which would be an increase in compulsory savings. The tax-hike/socialism police would have a field day with it, regardless of the truth.

I'm not saying it wouldn't save money, or that adopting a consumer-driven system would be a bad idea. I actually agree with you that it would be far preferable to what we have now. I'm saying that in our current political climate a Democrat can't even get support for Republican ideas.

Originally Posted by perrotfish

They have very similar systems.

Britain has the NHS, the poster child for socialized medical care. Germany has multi-payer, employer-based coverage. Switzerland has an insurance mandate. France is probably closest to single-payer through public insurance.

I can tell you right now that I'd rather break a leg in Berlin than in London.

They really bear little resemblance to each other, except that they provide universal coverage and are less expensive than the American model.

Originally Posted by HondoCrouch

Right, because physician salaries are what drive healthcare costs in this country.

Stopped reading this thread right here. I just wanted to make sure someone else understands this.

Originally Posted by exi

Stopped reading this thread right here. I just wanted to make sure someone else understands this.

Originally Posted by exi

Stopped reading this thread right here. I just wanted to make sure someone else understands this.

Someone understands what? Fee-for-service payment systems are arguably a significant driver of healthcare costs. If I get paid on a per-case basis, then I'll do more cases (which I do). If my actions generate $5 million in expenditure in order to net $300K for myself, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Perrotfish

I'm not saying its a government or regulation free system, but I think its a lot closer to American ideals than the European system. Also it's just as effective as the European system while being way cheaper. If we can't accept a system of government free healthcare, it seems like the next best alternative.

Incidentally, did you ever read How American Health Care Killed My Father? The author makes a compelling case for HSAs. My issue is that, by the time all is said and done, a workable HSA system looks functionally very similar to a national network of public insurance co-ops. So why bother in the first place?

Originally Posted by Salpingo

We can get away with this now because as a country we can import and finance the engineers and basic scientists from South Asia and the Middle East, even some parts of Europe. If things keep going the way they are with physician wages, that's whats going to happen to doctors. Then the developing countries will become developed, realize they can finance their healthcare with their own bubbles and insane financial products, and we'll be stuck with adequate, but kinda mediocre healthcare for the majority of Americans, while super wealthy go to Dubai Presbyterian Hospital for their advanced robotic surgeries.

I don't mind.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

Someone understands what? Fee-for-service payment systems are arguably a significant driver of healthcare costs. If I get paid on a per-case basis, then I'll do more cases (which I do). If my actions generate $5 million in expenditure in order to net $300K for myself, then so be it.

This will impact salary first, %GDP second, and inability to cover healthcare costs 3rd. This is why I dont like such stats when talking about healthcare costs. fee-for-service does not impact how much it costs to have X procedure done. But it does impact how much money is changed hands when procedure X is done Y times.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

This will impact salary first, %GDP second, and inability to cover healthcare costs 3rd. This is why I dont like such stats when talking about healthcare costs. fee-for-service does not impact how much it costs to have X procedure done. But it does impact how much money is changed hands when procedure X is done Y times.

True. Meant to say "expenditure."

I was drunk!

During 3rd year I've rotated with some visting students from Europe. Med school (at least in Germany and Switzerland) is a complete joke compared to what it's like in the US.

So what? Salary/hr at McDonalds China is probably fraction of people who work at McDonalds in US. So should we say McDonalds workers in US is overpaid?

yes us physicians earn the most, but that doesnt mean they have the highest standard of living. the average general physician earns 4x more than the average american. however in a country like india, the average general physician in India earns far less than the average physician in the us, but earns 30x more than the average Indian. so relatively because of that huge disparity, indian physicians have a better standard of living and lifestyle.

thats just like saying if the general physician here earned 30x more than the average american, than their lifestyle and luxury would be far greater than the ones they currently have making about 4x more than the average american.

so comparing salaries of physicians is not a good measure. what is a good measure is how much more does the physician earn than the average person of that country. markets are set on the salary and buying power of the average person in that country so that will give a good indicator of the quality of life of a physician.

Originally Posted by Gut Shot

True. Meant to say "expenditure."

I was drunk!

where are you and what specialty? I wanna come rotate with you!

Originally Posted by Oxer45

So what? Salary/hr at McDonalds China is probably fraction of people who work at McDonalds in US. So should we say McDonalds workers in US is overpaid?

Originally Posted by blazers

yes us physicians earn the most, but that doesnt mean they have the highest standard of living. the average general physician earns 4x more than the average american. however in a country like india, the average general physician in India earns far less than the average physician in the us, but earns 30x more than the average Indian. so relatively because of that huge disparity, indian physicians have a better standard of living and lifestyle.

thats just like saying if the general physician here earned 30x more than the average american, than their lifestyle and luxury would be far greater than the ones they currently have making about 4x more than the average american.

so comparing salaries of physicians is not a good measure. what is a good measure is how much more does the physician earn than the average person of that country. markets are set on the salary and buying power of the average person in that country so that will give a good indicator of the quality of life of a physician.

I think the most interesting thing learned from this topic is that so many people here (who somehow did ok on the mcat) cannot comprehend a simple graph like the one in the OP. THE CHART IS SHOWING EARNINGS RELATIVE TO PER CAPITA GDP. A.K.A. relative to an estimate of the average wealth for all workers in that country.

Between these brilliant students and all the people who have used this logic: "Physician salary isn't a main cause of high healthcare costs. Therefore nothing at all that is said about it matters," I can see a reason why healthcare outcomes aren't very good in the US...

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

I think the most interesting thing learned from this topic is that so many people here (who somehow did ok on the mcat) cannot comprehend a simple graph like the one in the OP. THE CHART IS SHOWING EARNINGS RELATIVE TO PER CAPITA GDP. A.K.A. relative to an estimate of the average wealth for all workers in that country.

Between these brilliant students and all the people who have used this logic: "Physician salary isn't a main cause of high healthcare costs. Therefore nothing at all that is said about it matters," I can see a reason why healthcare outcomes aren't very good in the US...

You are proving the old adage "ignorance is bliss".
Even tanking physician salary will not impact the cost of healthcare by any appreciable degree. I don't have time to find numbers (so if someone else wants to....) but I doubt you will find another profession where the major providers make such a small cut of the money generated. Also US outcomes are just fine. Youd have to be borderline retarded to think that our relative levels obesity and diseases of vice and excess are less to blame than your perceived sdn ignorance.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/09/...are-costs.html

Biased source and no actual numbers for % of healthcare spending so yeah...


But here is another issue. The "healthcare spending" is often listed as a %gdp. I.e. how many dollars did Americans spend on healthcare. Such a representation is inappropriate for a number of reasons. The major being that there is no direct correlation between total money spent and how expensive something is. I can buy nothing but ford pintos while my counterpart will only be seen in ferraris. There is nothing to say that at the end we won't have had the exact same expenditures on cars.... I will just have a buttload more fords than the other guy has ferraris.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

You are proving the old adage "ignorance is bliss".
Even tanking physician salary will not impact the cost of healthcare by any appreciable degree. I don't have time to find numbers (so if someone else wants to....) but I doubt you will find another profession where the major providers make such a small cut of the money generated. Also US outcomes are just fine. Youd have to be borderline retarded to think that our relative levels obesity and diseases of vice and excess are less to blame than your perceived sdn ignorance.

I was being facetious with that statement but it figures... Also, for the final time, NOWHERE have I said that this a big part of healthcare costs. People have made good counterpoints and maybe if nothing else it just shows inequality is higher in America. I do think fee-for-service is a related issue that truly drives up unnecessary costs in order to reach those salaries. A global payment system should to be implemented as a first step and this does not necessarily mean lower salaries.

Here are some numbers via a quick google search: 690,000 doctors currently in the US. Average salary for everyone ~200k (174k as of a few years back as the mean so an orthopod making 600k is offset by a pediatrician or 10 making 120k)

The national spending on healthcare is 2.3 trillion. I've usually seen doctors salaries listed as 20% of that cost HOWEVER the listing does not make a distinction between doctors paycheck and administrative/hospital costs. http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modul...und-brief.aspx

In the pie chart in the link above, where are nurses salary? Pharmacist salary (who can make almost as much as PCPs and are often employed by clinics or hospitals)? Administrative costs? All lumped in w doctor salary.

So 700k doctors making $200k comes to 140billion wow.... Maybe schroedinger is on to someth..... Pppffffttt ok couldn't say that with a straight face . 2.3 trillion divided by .14trillion (aka 140 billion) is.... Um... Carry the one.... Uh... Somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.08696%... Give or take.

If we ALL worked pro bono the average American would expect to get back slightly more than a nickel on the dollar. A few coupon clipping nut jobs may be down w that but if you pursue something with such limited returns what do you think will happen to the doctor shortage? Exactly.

Alright. Back to studying.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

I was being facetious with that statement but it figures... Also, for the final time, NOWHERE have I said that this a big part of healthcare costs. People have made good counterpoints and maybe if nothing else it just shows inequality is higher in America. I do think fee-for-service is a related issue that truly drives up unnecessary costs in order to reach those salaries. A global payment system should to be implemented as a first step and this does not necessarily mean lower salaries.

Then what was the point of listing the graph which DOES claim that physician salaries are to blame? Funsies?

Fee for service just means that there is still a doc around who is still willing to treat you after he has logged his 40 hours. You take that away and just see how easy it is to schedule an appt. the number of sick won't change, just the number of doctor hours.

U.S. Physicians are paid far more relatively than in any other country.

So?

U.S. Physicians are paid far more relatively than in any other country.

He also forgets in many countries physicians attend 2 yrs of high school, 2 yr college and go to med school. I knew one kid who did his high school in US and then went to med school in India bypassing 4 yrs of college. So let me come up with a new quote:

U.S. Physicians are far more educated than physicians in any other country.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

, NOWHERE have I said that this a big part of healthcare costs..

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

Sure you can blame the cost of medical education but doing that is not going to change the mess of unaffordable healthcare in the country. The obvious solution is to simply not attend high cost schools but obviously the drive for prestige & success won't let that happen (see law school) and these students will just end up being disgruntled and a detriment to the profession.

This is one aspect of the astronomical US healthcare costs that will surely be addressed to get back in line with OECD averages, so expect salaries to go down significantly. Please just don't incessantly whine about this when you're a doc, you should know what you're going into.

you dont have to use the word "big". If it is worth citing a flimsy graph and going on and on about the random crap you have been, the "big" part is implied. Otherwise you might as well have posted a graph about medical expenditures on sticky notes for all the impact it has.

Originally Posted by Oxer45

He also forgets in many countries physicians attend 2 yrs of high school, 2 yr college and go to med school. I knew one kid who did his high school in US and then went to med school in India bypassing 4 yrs of college. So let me come up with a new quote:

As much as I agree with your earlier posts, the fact that we go through far more schooling does not make us any more deserving of (forget about entitled to) higher salaries. Similarly, if someone goes to college and majors in Art History, I have no sympathy for that student's debt situation. It's not our fault if we screw ourselves over with redundant, useless years in college. It's my opinion there should be a six-year track of college/med school.

But the fact is we ARE more educated, and are much better doctors. If someone has serious cancer, they come to Sloan-Kettering, not to some rink-a-dink hospital in Canada.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

Well what do you think is needed to put a dent in the country's massive costs? The research says the physician's usual go-to of tort reform will have a negligible impact (but I agree it should be done).

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...f-tort-reform/

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...-red-herrings/

just cleaning house a little here... apparently someone came in and spread soiled kitty litter all over the place and it got missed

First link -
A single state malpractice cap will not affect medicare reimbursements as these are federal and nationally averaged (albeit regionally). It is still the feds that determine how much money you get back. Additionally there are many aspects outside of the hospital's control. They do not provide health insurance so that argument is irrelevant.

Second link -
The author says that we do not have more old people in america. He supports this by providing a graph with %population over 65. Does he (or you) realize that the # of old farts can grow while the % stays the same? The US population has been growing, so by that alone if the % stays completely steady the # of old people still increases. However the % grew. Which means the # is growing faster each year (accelerating).
He then goes on to say that we have the highest % of children... on a line that trends DOWNWARD. this is percent and since percents always add up to 100 that PROVES that the US pop is aging.

As for vices: the graphs do not take into account the type of drinking. French people having wine at every meal is not the same as bubba joe knockin back a six pack after his big mac. Also yes, obesity costs much more than smoking or drinking. By the time smoking is a major health problem you usually don't have a whole lot of time left. Obesity is chronic and comes with a plethora of expensive and continuing illnesses.

Your blogger need is in serious need of some common sense...

Have you considered that the household income in the United States is higher in general than the countries in Europe you are comparing physician salaries to? Salaries are higher here across nearly every profession. Do you think physicians should be the exception?

Now take into account how much harder we work and how much more educated and trained we are as others have said.

Now take into account how we provide more timely and advanced healthcare procedures. You are overlooking the differences between the US and many European healthcare systems. Our system is at will and therefore, naturally, it is problem/solution based instead of prevention based. Many socialized systems are prevention based and force participation through checkups, etc. Such is the difference between freedom, and government dependence. As Americans, it is each individuals responsibility to take care of themselves with or without the help of the physician. Therefore, some people have great outcomes, others do not.

Now consider how the "outcomes" you brought up are based on population statistics which don't take into account any differences in the healthcare systems, diversity of communities, sheer size of country, etc.

You talk about the cost of the healthcare system. What is cost? Socialized European countries budget X amount of money for their citizen's healthcare. That is their cost. We are not socialized, therefore, our cost rises and falls dynamically with citizens, businesses, insurance companies, providers AND the government contributing.

Now that I've dismantled your hysterical claims with facts you conveniently overlooked due to your political blinders, my work here is done.

Originally Posted by Dave89

As much as I agree with your earlier posts, the fact that we go through far more schooling does not make us any more deserving of (forget about entitled to) higher salaries. Similarly, if someone goes to college and majors in Art History, I have no sympathy for that student's debt situation. It's not our fault if we screw ourselves over with redundant, useless years in college. It's my opinion there should be a six-year track of college/med school.

But the fact is we ARE more educated, and are much better doctors. If someone has serious cancer, they come to Sloan-Kettering, not to some rink-a-dink hospital in Canada.

You fail to consider a factor economists refer to as human capital. The people with more skill, more education and more training are in much shorter supply than their less than equal counterparts and are therefore more valuable. If our skills are in demand, our cost goes up. Getting education for education's sake does not entitle anyone to more money as you have mentioned, but acquiring in demand skills few people are willing to sacrifice for does. If it was easy, we would all be doctors, and nobody would make any money.

Originally Posted by Crim1

You fail to consider a factor economists refer to as human capital. The people with more skill, more education and more training are in much shorter supply than their less than equal counterparts and are therefore more valuable. If our skills are in demand, our cost goes up. Getting education for education's sake does not entitle anyone to more money as you have mentioned, but acquiring in demand skills few people are willing to sacrifice for does. If it was easy, we would all be doctors, and nobody would make any money.

True enough. I just wanted to make the point that it's important not to fall into the trap of expecting remuneration commensurate with time/money spent on schooling.

Originally Posted by Crim1

Have you considered that the household income in the United States is higher in general than the countries in Europe you are comparing physician salaries to? Salaries are higher here across nearly every profession. Do you think physicians should be the exception?

Now take into account how much harder we work and how much more educated and trained we are as others have said.

Now take into account how we provide more timely and advanced healthcare procedures. You are overlooking the differences between the US and many European healthcare systems. Our system is at will and therefore, naturally, it is problem/solution based instead of prevention based. Many socialized systems are prevention based and force participation through checkups, etc. Such is the difference between freedom, and government dependence. As Americans, it is each individuals responsibility to take care of themselves with or without the help of the physician. Therefore, some people have great outcomes, others do not.

Now consider how the "outcomes" you brought up are based on population statistics which don't take into account any differences in the healthcare systems, diversity of communities, sheer size of country, etc.

You talk about the cost of the healthcare system. What is cost? Socialized European countries budget X amount of money for their citizen's healthcare. That is their cost. We are not socialized, therefore, our cost rises and falls dynamically with citizens, businesses, insurance companies, providers AND the government contributing.

Now that I've dismantled your hysterical claims with facts you conveniently overlooked due to your political blinders, my work here is done.

The original graph compares against average US income so yes that was considered. The appropriate retort is that this fact does not significantly impact healthcare cost nor is making more money relevant to anything.

The true reason costs are so high and results aren't the best:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...lts/54791430/1

Originally Posted by badasshairday

The true reason costs are so high and results aren't the best:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...lts/54791430/1

This is true. There are two choices however and both of them are not appealing.

1. Go to more of a free market system and do not allow people without health insurance to go to the ER. Allowing people without insurance to go to the ER is basically universal coverage but 5x more expensive for the system. People would be directly responsible for their rates and health, but people with pre-existing conditions would be screwed and people would also be dying in the streets as ambulances check for health insurance before picking them up.

2. Universal coverage, but paternalistic policies. Us 60% who won't be obese will be damned if we have to pay ridiculous premiums to provide a decent community rating for a population in which 40% is obese. And when the healthy people watch these obese people sitting on their butts with a giant mountain dew they will be angry, inevitably leading to paternalistic policies. Ban on soda, excersize requirements, fat tax, etc.

Since both of these options are so unappealing looks like we'll just drive ourselves to bankruptcy in the current system where the obesity is subsidized (via medicare and medicaid) but there are no obesity curbing paternalistic policies and the uninsured can go to the ER. Anyone have a third option?

Originally Posted by Dave89

As much as I agree with your earlier posts, the fact that we go through far more schooling does not make us any more deserving of (forget about entitled to) higher salaries. Similarly, if someone goes to college and majors in Art History, I have no sympathy for that student's debt situation. It's not our fault if we screw ourselves over with redundant, useless years in college. It's my opinion there should be a six-year track of college/med school.

But the fact is we ARE more educated, and are much better doctors. If someone has serious cancer, they come to Sloan-Kettering, not to some rink-a-dink hospital in Canada.

You are an idiot. Such an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about

Originally Posted by docnotsopc

You are an idiot. Such an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about

Note: US residencies are a crucial part of "better educated."

Edit: Out of curiosity at your rudeness, I just checked out your other posts. You clearly have a hate-on for Americans, so I'm not going to bother with you.

Originally Posted by Dave89

Note: US residencies are a crucial part of "better educated."

Edit: Out of curiosity at your rudeness, I just checked out your other posts. You clearly have a hate-on for Americans, so I'm not going to bother with you.

I dunno man... I am not gunna be too quick to knock a system that uses plaid flannel surgical drapes and where the script most written is for french fry gravy... (you want the good stuff... I don't trust the generic).

EDIT: wrong thread.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

2. Universal coverage, but paternalistic policies. Us 60% who won't be obese will be damned if we have to pay ridiculous premiums to provide a decent community rating for a population in which 40% is obese. And when the healthy people watch these obese people sitting on their butts with a giant mountain dew they will be angry, inevitably leading to paternalistic policies. Ban on soda, excersize requirements, fat tax, etc.

There are other, less paternalistic ways to try to reduce obesity. The government currently massively subsidizes commodity crops, like corn, wheat, soybeans, etc. Things like vegetables are considered "specialty crops", and aren't subsidized. No one in their right mind would look at the current American diet and think, "Wow, Americans really need to eat more corn and less vegetables. It's a good thing we have all these subsidies trying to encourage them to do that."

If we would just cancel the corn subsidies (which would either have the additional benefit of reducing the deficit, or else free up more money in the budget for medicare, bombs, or whatever else the government spends money on), we'd be taking a big step in the right direction.

It's not that the government needs to take drastic action for force people to be less fat. It might be enough for them to just stop taking the drastic, fat-encouraging actions that they are already doing.

Originally Posted by phltz

It's not that the government needs to take drastic action for force people to be less fat. It might be enough for them to just stop taking the drastic, fat-encouraging actions that they are already doing.

I think they do need to take drastic action to have any actual impact. As long as a large 350 calorie soda is a dollar at McDonalds there will be an obesity epidemic. I work with some very obese people and I've seen one walk into work with an entire box of donuts "for breakfast." Everyone who wants to participate in universal healthcare needs to be measured for BMI + body fat % (to prevent certain athletes from being labeled as obese) and the ones with obese BMI & >20% BF% (a bit higher for females) should be somehow dissalowed to buy sugary drinks or any type of junk food. Otherwise I sure as heck am not paying for for their endless heart surgeries and diabetic treatment.

Originally Posted by SchroedingrsCat

Everyone who wants to participate in universal healthcare needs to be measured for BMI + body fat % (to prevent certain athletes from being labeled as obese) and the ones with obese BMI & >20% BF% (a bit higher for females) should be somehow dissalowed to buy sugary drinks or any type of junk food. Otherwise I sure as heck am not paying for for their endless heart surgeries and diabetic treatment.

Well, by the fact that it is universal healthcare, everyone participates regardless of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise it is not universal if not everyone can participate, like the system now. And you do know that if you buy your private health insurance, you are providing indirect payments to the healthcare of people with health problems related to obesity, as their costs are higher than yours, so in order for insurance companies to cover them, your premiums are higher. That's the way the system works now, universal coverage won't change that.

Originally Posted by SurfingDoctor

Well, by the fact that it is universal healthcare, everyone participates regardless of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise it is not universal if not everyone can participate, like the system now. And you do know that if you buy your private health insurance, you are providing indirect payments to the healthcare of people with health problems related to obesity, as their costs are higher than yours, so in order for insurance companies to cover them, your premiums are higher. That's the way the system works now, universal coverage won't change that.

+1

Also when random folks with no money use the ER, we are paying for that too

We are paying for all this stuff anyway, I would rather some of that money go towards getting these folks "free" PCP's for like 1k a year instead of waiting ten years for the 100k hospital bill.

Originally Posted by Dave89

Note: US residencies are a crucial part of "better educated."

Edit: Out of curiosity at your rudeness, I just checked out your other posts. You clearly have a hate-on for Americans, so I'm not going to bother with you.

Well first of all you made a rude comment without having any idea what you are even talking about. Any "rinky dink" hospital in the US is going to offer the exact same quality of healthcare as any "rinky dink" hospital in ANY other first world country. The difference is in the US it will cost you an arm and a leg.

Second, I love certain things about the US and hate other things. There is so many things to love about this country. However, Americans like to make comments about other countries when Americans are (sadly) one of the least educated when it comes to any country outside of their own and base your opinions on embarrassingly wrong stereotypes.

American doctors in general are no more educated than doctors from any other first world country. Sure, the top 5% of doctors in the US are the top in their field internationally but the average doctor here is no more educated than a doctor from another first world country. The common argument on your end is "we have a longer education". Some countries (England, Australia for example) offer 6 year programs right out of high school. At first glance it may appear that they have much less training. However, dont forget that they jump into the SAME medical information right away instead of spending 3-4 years in undergrad on a generally irrelevant education for medicine. Some residencies/internships are longer in the US, and some are not depending on the specialty.

So how are American doctors "better educated"?

The only legitimate justification for the high wages of US physicians is the high cost of education to become a doctor. The time of training (medical, not random undergrad courses) is relatively the same among first world countries

Originally Posted by SurfingDoctor

Well, by the fact that it is universal healthcare, everyone participates regardless of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise it is not universal if not everyone can participate, like the system now. And you do know that if you buy your private health insurance, you are providing indirect payments to the healthcare of people with health problems related to obesity, as their costs are higher than yours, so in order for insurance companies to cover them, your premiums are higher. That's the way the system works now, universal coverage won't change that.

Originally Posted by docnotsopc

So how are American doctors "better educated"?

The US training to become a doctor is 4 years of high school, 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school then a 3-10 year residency. In the rest of the world, it's more like 4 years of high school, 6 years of medical school then either you are licensed to practice, or you can enter a residency which is nothing like the US residency. US residencies are intense training periods where you work 60-100 hours a week for years on end before becoming fully licensed while EU style residencies are capped at something like 46 hours a week. Finally, US doctors continue to work 10-20 hours more per week than EU physicians.

Am I the only one who thinks it's not a bad thing if it is true that "US physicians are paid far more" than in other countries? I didn't read the whole thread, but it looks like most of the argument is over the methodology of the study...Maybe doctors deserve as much as they can make, just like attorneys, fishermen, plumbers, gardeners, daycare workers...

Originally Posted by elmariachi

Am I the only one who thinks it's not a bad thing if it is true that "US physicians are paid far more" than in other countries? I didn't read the whole thread, but it looks like most of the argument is over the methodology of the study...Maybe doctors deserve as much as they can make, just like attorneys, fishermen, plumbers, gardeners, daycare workers...

Nope. I think you're right.

EDIT: http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top2000.asp

We made Top 13, and 17 out of Top 20

Originally Posted by Dave89

Nope. I think you're right.

EDIT: http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top2000.asp

We made Top 13, and 17 out of Top 20

Man, those are some wack rankings!

What amazed me most was how much the specialists in Belgium get paid relative to the generalists. Where did that come from?

__________________
You can't handle the truth.