Have we been deceived?

[Law2Doc]

No, life in medicine is not some sweeping romantic drama where we wake up everyday "for the love the game" and subsist soley off the "love" of our patients! sheesh, grow up

I'm not sure who needs to grow up here. If you end up doing something you dislike, and dread every monday morning, you are going to realize just how unimportant the money part really is. But it's something one can't explain to someone who hasn't spent substantial time in the work force (or at least enough time to have learned this fundamental lesson), I guess. Find someone who loves their job, and you will be looking at someone who isn't doing it for the paycheck. The luckiest ones find both. The most vocally miserable are the ones who are living paycheck to paycheck, regardless of its size. Good luck.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LabMonster]

Very true!!! But solving this crisis has been the "future physicians" job for a long time now.
Doc, in general, are too stubborn to find a medium where they are all willing to work towards a greater goal.
Plus you will always have new docs, who are will be willing, to figuratively get tossed around like a rag doll.

Wherever exists a problem, exists a solution - and I think solutions are pretty damn fun.

Or this way, House: "It's an anomaly - and anomalies bug me."

 

[Conqueror]

I am going into medicine because I love it. I work in a hospital 8-5 3x/week for NO PAY because I love being there. BUT, I'm a full-time student and can afford to do so.

I have to at least partially agree with LADoc00: like it or not, you HAVE to make money at your job to live in the USA. To do so, your income must rise to match inflation EVERY YEAR, or you will inevitably go bankrupt. Doctors are one of only a few professions in the country whose income does NOT rise with inflation. For many doctors, income is actually FALLING. It has been for years. That is unacceptable. Doctors may still be making plenty of money, but how long should we let the trend continue?

"Oh, so your income fell three years in a row, boohoo, you still make $150k."

"Oh, so your income fell five years in a row, boohoo, you still make $110k."

"Oh, so your income fell eight years in a row, boohoo, you still make $90k."

"Oh, so your income fell eleven years in a row, boohoo, you still make $55k."

"Oh, so your income fell fifteen years in a row, boohoo, you still make $30k."

When do you plan to stand up and fight the trend? Personally, I love medicine, but I will not work 80 hours a week for $40k. I'd rather sacrifice my love of medicine for a 9-5 making $80k and be able to spend time with my wife and kids. Doctors sacrifice the best decade of their lives (their 20s) to medical training, and society owes them better treatment than a continual reduction of quality of life.

CQ

 

[Law2Doc]

To do so, your income must rise to match inflation EVERY YEAR, or you will inevitably go bankrupt.

This sentence is not factually accurate, although I agree with the underlying argument. Whether you are bankrupted by inflation totally depends on how much you are earning. Someone who nets $500k per year can weather an entire career of skyrocketing inflation before his expenses would grow to the point that they would cause a bankruptcy. Someone who nets $100k might be a different situation, although raises would forestall the need for bankruptcy for many years, even if they didn't keep pace of inflation. The word "inevitably" is thus a bit overreaching.

 

[Redneck]

What of the notion of capping what lawyers can earn in lawsuits? If they can only make so much they might not have such a thirst to bring down fat money targets like malpractice insurance. I believe this might be the first step to positive change.

 

[Law2Doc]

What of the notion of capping what lawyers can earn in lawsuits? If they can only make so much they might not have such a thirst to bring down fat money targets like malpractice insurance. I believe this might be the first step to positive change.

Well, technically they are "capped" at a quarter to a third of the judgement, depending on the state -- it is illegal to charge a higher percentage. While your suggestion is a nice sound bite for politicians, it is impossible to legislatively cap the worth of a lawsuit, because every case is really quite different -- in some cases the damage to the plaintiff is more severe than others, in some case the act of malpractice is more egregious. Contingency fees were created largely to enable those with an inability to pay but who were harmed to still get effective counsel. Because it is hugely expensive (in terms of attorney time and costs) to bring a suit, and attorneys who do this kind of work only get paid if their client wins, very few lawyers would be willing to get involved in contingency work unless there was the potential of decent profit. (And bear in mind that for every big judgement a plaintiff wins, the same lawyer probably had quite a few losses where he ate the costs). So once you start setting ceilings, you probably make it much harder for poor people to obtain counsel. (Lawyers for the rich more traditionally have been paid by the hour). The better solution would be to just take the ultimate dollar value of the damage award out of the hands of juries and give that power to a judge (after the jury has determined the outcome, as required by the Constitution) -- at least then you wouldn't have 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty deciding how much they are going to stick it to a wealthier doctor.
(And in case anyone was wondering, this is not an area of law I practiced in).

 

[Redneck]

So then the real problem is the paper work involved with filing law suits, which forces hard work for lawyers. If we could some how reduce the paper work (bureaucracy?) we might reduce their level of compensation, which might reduce the lust to bust malpractice insurance, etc... to a possibly improved healthcare.

 

[Conqueror]

This sentence is not factually accurate, although I agree with the underlying argument. Whether you are bankrupted by inflation totally depends on how much you are earning. Someone who nets $500k per year can weather an entire career of skyrocketing inflation before his expenses would grow to the point that they would cause a bankruptcy. Someone who nets $100k might be a different situation, although raises would forestall the need for bankruptcy for many years, even if they didn't keep pace of inflation. The word "inevitably" is thus a bit overreaching.

Like I said though, it is inevitable. Whether YOU personally will reach bankruptcy is questionable, but if a profession's income doesn't rise with inflation, all the practitioners will eventually be bankrupt in the future.

CQ

 

[JakeHarley]

I went into medicine to MAKE $$$

I am not judging you or trying to change you. However, how is this thinking not part of the problem? Furthermore:

And thank you for being the reason why this profession is going into the crapper.

What is your reasoning for this statement?

No, life in medicine is not some sweeping romantic drama where we wake up everyday "for the love the game" and subsist soley off the "love" of our patients! sheesh, grow up

Believe it or not, it is exactly this for some (maybe a few) people. And who cares...good for them, right?

 

[bananaface]

Great post.
By the way, how many broke doctors do you know? Me?? NONE. Come on people, lets keep it real. Work hard and you will do just fine.

Alot of FPs have a hard time getting by. No ****.

If you graduate at 32 and make 90K/year starting in private practice (realistic in some areas), have to pay malpractice insurance, taxes, and support your family, how long will it take you to pay off your 300K in loans? Answer: too damn long. Alot of them live in debt for 10-15 years before they can even think of planning for retirement.