anyone else feel that this is the worst time to be a med student

[Doublecortin]

---

Members do not see this ad.

These statements are also coming from someone who has lived in a city that is one of the most expensive draws on healthcare with the most business-minded doctors. The doctors own the town and take cash only. I hate what I've seen enough to not yet care about a cut in my pay if it means we're trying to get that fixed. I also have no loans, which may be an influence.

I respect other people's opinions, but this thread is called "anyone else think this is a bad time to be a med student" not an attending, resident, or even an intern. If the med students getting in these days are no longer naive or idealistic we're going to be in for a rough ride.

BTW, I'd appreciate not using low personal blows to get your point across. This is a political conversation, and we're not going to agree. Keep it civil.

😱 what planet are you from, dude? The reason our profession is being encroached on and threatened constantly is because the old generations of physicians were too " naive or idealistic" to realize that it's all about politics and that many will take advantage of our profession unless we push back hard.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

Flat out wrong. Idealists are the ones the govt gets to go along with this ****ed up plan and everyone will have to pay for your lack of vision. Id rather have a generation of stark pessimists that would help shake some sense into capitol hill with a unanimous and powerful resounding NO.

Wow, I smell some serious republican conservatism here. These words are almost the echos of Rush Lymbough, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levon.

Trust me, I don't care. I'm neither liberal nor democratic. But coming into this discussion with such a pre-determined political agenda helps nobody.

 

[MrAgreeable]

Wow, I smell some serious republican conservatism here. These words are almost the echos of Rush Lymbough, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levon.

Trust me, I don't care. I'm neither liberal nor democratic. But coming into this discussion with such a pre-determined political agenda helps nobody.

I agree, but the problem I find is that the only people to attept to answer the aforementioned questions in the media, for the most part, are political pundits on the left or right. So, this is where a lot of people draw the backing for their opinions. Still, politicism is invited by how nebulous this thread is.

 

[RandomUser]

Wow, I smell some serious republican conservatism here. These words are almost the echos of Rush Lymbough, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levon.

Trust me, I don't care. I'm neither liberal nor democratic. But coming into this discussion with such a pre-determined political agenda helps nobody.

Wow, ummm…you should be less proud to so casually admit your apathy, especially while chastising another for merely expressing his/her own opinion. There's nothing wrong about being republican/conservative. It's merely a point of view just like your own point of view (or lack thereof).

 

[gabe575]

I think that Obama is not going to make it in the 2012 elections. He's steadily sliding down the polls with every lame idea he has come up with. Even if he does get his healthcare reform, the next guy will just go right in and dismantle the whole thing to his liking. I think that doctors are going to have to involve themselves a little more in the next election to sway the vote towards someone who doesn't have a socialistic agenda. Compensation is important to a doctor, if Obama would have put in the same years for school as a doctor he might come to respect that. Yes, I am conservative. I am because I value me and my family's privacy. I do not believe that the government should be in control of anything. I don't believe in the IRS I don't believe in Universal Healthcare. We should privatize everything. The government should not step in between a doctor and his patient to regulate anything. Who the hell do they think they are?!?!

Over-all, I am not worried about this healthcare reform, and neither should any of you. When it comes time for Obama's body to start failing him, I hope that he finds himself in my OR. I will make sure to save the government every single penny I can and to suggest that congress approve his plan of care!

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

I think that Obama is not going to make it in the 2012 elections. He's steadily sliding down the polls with every lame idea he has come up with. Even if he does get his healthcare reform, the next guy will just go right in and dismantle the whole thing to his liking. I think that doctors are going to have to involve themselves a little more in the next election to sway the vote towards someone who doesn't have a socialistic agenda. Compensation is important to a doctor, if Obama would have put in the same years for school as a doctor he might come to respect that. Yes, I am conservative. I am because I value me and my family's privacy. I do not believe that the government should be in control of anything. I don't believe in the IRS I don't believe in Universal Healthcare. We should privatize everything. The government should not step in between a doctor and his patient to regulate anything. Who the hell do they think they are?!?!

Over-all, I am not worried about this healthcare reform, and neither should any of you. When it comes time for Obama's body to start failing him, I hope that he finds himself in my OR. I will make sure to save the government every single penny I can and to suggest that congress approve his plan of care!

Too bad the offerings of 2008 were an old POW and a community organizer from the Chicago political machine.

I hope 2012 provides better quality.

 

[womp]

I agree about the future, but I do worry. I also question Obama's motives severely. He's a politician first.

And a lawyer.

Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's health secretary, was the executive director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association for over a decade.

I don't have much faith in Democrats, nor Republicans.

 

[chessknt]

Wow, I smell some serious republican conservatism here. These words are almost the echos of Rush Lymbough, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levon.

Trust me, I don't care. I'm neither liberal nor democratic. But coming into this discussion with such a pre-determined political agenda helps nobody.

Because disagreeing with Obama makes me a republican by default? Im just a guy who happens to believe that the government should play as little as a role in everything as possible. Socializing heathcare and paying through the teeth for uninsured people is not my idea of a good use of tax dollars and definitely not a step forward as far as our careers are concerned.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Wow, I smell some serious republican conservatism here. These words are almost the echos of Rush Lymbough, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levon.

Trust me, I don't care. I'm neither liberal nor democratic. But coming into this discussion with such a pre-determined political agenda helps nobody.

You mean Mark Levin. These people have a right to their opinion as much as anybody else. And while they sensationalize themselves, they often make very good points, too.

People who take the time to listen to them prior to criticizing them know this.

As far as my conservatism, well, I have worked in healthcare for 10 years, 5 of which have been in private practice. When you run a small business, you tend to have values that align with conservative principles, especially fiscally.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Because disagreeing with Obama makes me a republican by default? Im just a guy who happens to believe that the government should play as little as a role in everything as possible. Socializing heathcare and paying through the teeth for uninsured people is not my idea of a good use of tax dollars and definitely not a step forward as far as our careers are concerned.

What was it Hillary said last year?

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

That's the quote in its entirety. No spin.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

Socializing heathcare and paying through the teeth for uninsured people is not my idea of a good use of tax dollars

If you have worked in a public hospital, you would definitely share my feelings. Being poor is the gateway to free healthcare. This is no secret for anyone who's working in the system.

When a patient, who is determined NOT to pay a dime, walks into the ER, we as the responsible medicle team:

1) KNOW he/she isn't going to pay a dime
2) are obligated to treat his/her life-threatening disease
3) are very likely to also treat his/her non-life-threatening disease (check lipid panel, restart diabetes meds, etc)
4) can discharge the patient very quickly but can do absolutely nothing to keep the patient from coming back, which may happen next day
5) wonder in secret that all of these things are paid by someone, and that is the tax payers' money

This is the freaking dilemma we are facing, and I haven't heard many politicians talked about it.

I don't have an opinion in this whole healthcare debate because I can't think of a solution to this status quo, which is apparently not the ideal situation. Let's check our options:

1) Hope this patient will be better functioning, making money and paying the medical bills

* Ain't gonna happen for the next century and centuries to come

2) Denies treatment and watch them die

* Actually, this is the situation in many 3rd world countries. No payment = no treatment. You need to chip in $5 before I can hang the saline. I think it is wrong and unethical, and it will never happen in this country

3) Treat life-threatening condition but defer non life-threatening conditions

* This is what's going on in many private hospitals. My hospital, which is very public, would be very reluctant to do this due to tradition/culture. Also, it is very hard to draw a line between life-threatening/non-life-threatening. Elevated BP is not life-threatening per se, but the intracranial bleeding is on its way

4) Advocate preventative healthcare so the patient won't come in to start with

* Well, what should I say. Some people in this country do not believe in preventative healthcare. They argue the decrease in smoking has no effect on healthcare cost. Other say that it violates individual liberty by advocating preventative healthcare behaviors, because it is "my choice" to smoke, eat junk food, have a sedentary life style, and having a 45 BMI.

5) Tax the rich because you can never tax the rich enough

* Won't comment here. I will leave it to you to fill in the blank

 

[chessknt]

If you have worked in a public hospital, you would definitely share my feelings. Being poor is the gateway to free healthcare. This is no secret for anyone who's working in the system.

When a patient, who is determined NOT to pay a dime, walks into the ER, we as the responsible medicle team:

1) KNOW he/she isn't going to pay a dime
2) are obligated to treat his/her life-threatening disease
3) are very likely to also treat his/her non-life-threatening disease (check lipid panel, restart diabetes meds, etc)
4) can discharge the patient very quickly but can do absolutely nothing to keep the patient from coming back, which may happen next day
5) wonder in secret that all of these things are paid by someone, and that is the tax payers' money

This is the freaking dilemma we are facing, and I haven't heard many politicians talked about it.

I don't have an opinion in this whole healthcare debate because I can't think of a solution to this status quo, which is apparently not the ideal situation. Let's check our options:

1) Hope this patient will be better functioning, making money and paying the medical bills

* Ain't gonna happen for the next century and centuries to come

2) Denies treatment and watch them die

* Actually, this is the situation in many 3rd world countries. No payment = no treatment. You need to chip in $5 before I can hang the saline. I think it is wrong and unethical, and it will never happen in this country

3) Treat life-threatening condition but defer non life-threatening conditions

* This is what's going on in many private hospitals. My hospital, which is very public, would be very reluctant to do this due to tradition/culture. Also, it is very hard to draw a line between life-threatening/non-life-threatening. Elevated BP is not life-threatening per se, but the intracranial bleeding is on its way

4) Advocate preventative healthcare so the patient won't come in to start with

* Well, what should I say. Some people in this country do not believe in preventative healthcare. They argue the decrease in smoking has no effect on healthcare cost. Other say that it violates individual liberty by advocating preventative healthcare behaviors, because it is "my choice" to smoke, eat junk food, have a sedentary life style, and having a 45 BMI.

5) Tax the rich because you can never tax the rich enough

* Won't comment here. I will leave it to you to fill in the blank

Of course its the gateway to free healthcare because we have tacitly assumed that access to expensive medical technology is a right, not a privilege. If you cant afford to pay for the treatment or belong to an insurance group that can pay for it, why does it become EVERYONE ELSES responsibility to pay for it?

Just because some people have an overextended and illogical sense of morality does not mean I should have to pay to satisfy it. You can call it extreme conservatism or whatever you want, but when I want to donate to a charitable cause (because that is essentially where these healthcare tax dollars are going if we ignore the ridiculous overhead costs--to get addicts drugs, bums a place to sleep, the elderly an extra month of feeding tube life etc) I want to be able to pick where my money goes, not the irresponsible nanny government.

 

[rachmoninov3]

I have to agree with good yeast and chessknt87. There was a good article 3 or 4 years back in JAMA or the New England Journal (sorry i can't find it) talking about how US healthcare has been collapsing since the 1960s, but hasn't collapsed and why it hasn't collapsed: Charity. A large portion of what pays for people who are determined not to pay, comes from U.S. citizens being charitable. Either through the church, through private donations, or by voting on local issues like a local sales tax to keep the university hospital open.
The US healthcare system hasn't collapsed because there are still enough hospitals who ballance charity with business and provide state of the art uncompensated care.
However the point is that Americans choose to give their money so that people can take advance of the system. They aren't forced to pay for people who take adavantage of the system.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

Let me share some interesting patient cases with you. All of these are true stories.

Patient 1: She had an absolutely non-emergency problem and called the ambulance, which took her to our hospital. The ambulance bill was around $900. My team questioned her how come she didn't just get a cab, which would cost maybe 20 bucks. Her answer, "yeah but I'd have to pay for the cab".

Patient 2: He got into a car accident, had DAI, and became vegetative. Stayed in the ICU for a month. No funding, nothing. His family in South America had agreed to take him back to their country, only if transportation could be provided. The hospital spent $35,000 to get a private jet to fly him back to whatever that country was. And it's cheaper than keeping him in the hospital.

Patient 3: A Mexican man who drove across the border into U.S. and kept driving for 1000+ miles until he reached a public hospital. He did this because his neighbors in Mexico told him that "in U.S. you can get free healthcare". He did this and indeed got his free healthcare in the U.S.

Patient 4: A homeless guy. Diabetic. Foot gangrene and got a BKA (below-knee-amputation). Stayed in hospital for a week then discharge to the...street. He walked on his stump everyday against medical advice, and got reinfected. Came back, repeat I&D (incision & drainage). Well, not an exciting story I guess so far. He repeated this process 8 times in the next 6 months.

Patient 5: Mid-aged man living in the ghetto. No money to fill his meds (statin, HTN meds, etc) despite they are $4 per money from Walmart. But, he did have money to buy the "real" drug: coccaine. Bam, got an MI. Cath failed and went to a CABG. It costed the hospital $400,000.

 

[womp]

Let me share some interesting patient cases with you. All of these are true stories.

Patient 1: She had an absolutely non-emergency problem and called the ambulance, which took her to our hospital. The ambulance bill was around $900. My team questioned her how come she didn't just get a cab, which would cost maybe 20 bucks. Her answer, "yeah but I'd have to pay for the cab".

Patient 2: He got into a car accident, had DAI, and became vegetative. Stayed in the ICU for a month. No funding, nothing. His family in South America had agreed to take him back to their country, only if transportation could be provided. The hospital spent $35,000 to get a private jet to fly him back to whatever that country was. And it's cheaper than keeping him in the hospital.

Patient 3: A Mexican man who drove across the border into U.S. and kept driving for 1000+ miles until he reached a public hospital. He did this because his neighbors in Mexico told him that "in U.S. you can get free healthcare". He did this and indeed got his free healthcare in the U.S.

Patient 4: A homeless guy. Diabetic. Foot gangrene and got a BKA (below-knee-amputation). Stayed in hospital for a week then discharge to the...street. He walked on his stump everyday against medical advice, and got reinfected. Came back, repeat I&D (incision & drainage). Well, not an exciting story I guess so far. He repeated this process 8 times in the next 6 months.

Patient 5: Mid-aged man living in the ghetto. No money to fill his meds (statin, HTN meds, etc) despite they are $4 per money from Walmart. But, he did have money to buy the "real" drug: coccaine. Bam, got an MI. Cath failed and went to a CABG. It costed the hospital $400,000.

Reading this made me sad. Also, I wonder what the public option says about no-shows.

 

[chessknt]

Let me share some interesting patient cases with you. All of these are true stories.

Patient 1: She had an absolutely non-emergency problem and called the ambulance, which took her to our hospital. The ambulance bill was around $900. My team questioned her how come she didn't just get a cab, which would cost maybe 20 bucks. Her answer, "yeah but I'd have to pay for the cab".

Patient 2: He got into a car accident, had DAI, and became vegetative. Stayed in the ICU for a month. No funding, nothing. His family in South America had agreed to take him back to their country, only if transportation could be provided. The hospital spent $35,000 to get a private jet to fly him back to whatever that country was. And it's cheaper than keeping him in the hospital.

Patient 3: A Mexican man who drove across the border into U.S. and kept driving for 1000+ miles until he reached a public hospital. He did this because his neighbors in Mexico told him that "in U.S. you can get free healthcare". He did this and indeed got his free healthcare in the U.S.

Patient 4: A homeless guy. Diabetic. Foot gangrene and got a BKA (below-knee-amputation). Stayed in hospital for a week then discharge to the...street. He walked on his stump everyday against medical advice, and got reinfected. Came back, repeat I&D (incision & drainage). Well, not an exciting story I guess so far. He repeated this process 8 times in the next 6 months.

Patient 5: Mid-aged man living in the ghetto. No money to fill his meds (statin, HTN meds, etc) despite they are $4 per money from Walmart. But, he did have money to buy the "real" drug: coccaine. Bam, got an MI. Cath failed and went to a CABG. It costed the hospital $400,000.

This is what the public needs to see more of. Each one of these cases should have been thrown right back onto the streets unless someone was willing to pick up the tab other than the powerless taxpayer.

 

[MrAgreeable]

Because disagreeing with Obama makes me a republican by default? Im just a guy who happens to believe that the government should play as little as a role in everything as possible. Socializing heathcare and paying through the teeth for uninsured people is not my idea of a good use of tax dollars and definitely not a step forward as far as our careers are concerned.

You, my friend, are a Libertarian. Much like the Marines, they are few but proud. (Alas, I am not one of either)

 

[MrAgreeable]

This is what the public needs to see more of. Each one of these cases should have been thrown right back onto the streets unless someone was willing to pick up the tab other than the powerless taxpayer.

Much like other Libertarians you take it a bit far (not saying you are totally off the wall). Is there a distinction between citizen and non-citizen? Should non-US citizens be denied? Its arguable. Do you as a citizen have the duty to aid your fellow Americans? That too is arguable. I really don't think we realize that we live in one of the most economically conservative countries in Western culture and be happy we're not (prospectively speaking as some of us like myself are still in training) glorified, underpaid government employees and, despite how bad Faux News scares you, it will never go that far because the political pendulum will swing back.

I'd also rather pay for the healthcare of a homeless veteran than for Dick Cheney to contract a construction project in Iraq.

It's all relative.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

Is there a distinction between citizen and non-citizen? Should non-US citizens be denied?

My father worked in Hong Kong for 8 years, and I have personally visited Hong Kong three times. This is before 1997 so it has nothing to do with the Communist China. Hong Kong at that time was run completely under the British culture.

In Hong Kong, there are many public hospitals which offer free healthcare. However, you must show an ID card, which is a proof of your resident status in Hong Kong. No ID, no treatment. Yes, that means they actually watch you die.

Well, I hate to say that "we are a more civilized world", but I honestly think we should not treat people with illegal status for non-life-threatening conditions. If you are bleeding, in a lot of pain, or in labor, we as the American healthcare system should do our best to fix you, regardless of anything.

The problem is that we are over-shooting our target. In the hospital I work in, which I'm sure represents a large number of American public hospitals, is treating everyone in the exactly same way regardless of your legal status. My very personal opinion is that "being too ethical is unethical". You are more than welcome to disagree.

 

[chessknt]

If the majority of people shared your sense of moral obligation AND acknowledged their responsibility to pay for it, then our extravagant expenditures would be justified. However most people only have half of this and arent going to be opening up their wallets (knowingly anyways) to pay for neonatal care on a border hopping mom's anchor baby or antiviral treatments for a half-insane wino with HIV. This is similar to peoples pipedreams for a magnet train that runs across the US and solar energy that can power everything, except in this case it has moved beyond a thought and is now a fiscally painful reality.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources these people would get treatment they cant afford, but in a limited world we need to reserve resources for the people that contribute to a functional society. By this I mean people that work (whether paid or volunteer), raise families, etc. I would also agree that veterans or children born to others with serious defects should also be given care, but even restricting it to something as simple as citizens only for ANY form of care would go a long way in saving our healthcare system from complete ruin.

 

[MrAgreeable]

If the majority of people shared your sense of moral obligation AND acknowledged their responsibility to pay for it, then our extravagant expenditures would be justified. However most people only have half of this and arent going to be opening up their wallets (knowingly anyways) to pay for neonatal care on a border hopping mom's anchor baby or antiviral treatments for a half-insane wino with HIV. This is similar to peoples pipedreams for a magnet train that runs across the US and solar energy that can power everything, except in this case it has moved beyond a thought and is now a fiscally painful reality.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources these people would get treatment they cant afford, but in a limited world we need to reserve resources for the people that contribute to a functional society. By this I mean people that work (whether paid or volunteer), raise families, etc. I would also agree that veterans or children born to others with serious defects should also be given care, but even restricting it to something as simple as citizens only for ANY form of care would go a long way in saving our healthcare system from complete ruin.

I understand where your ideas come from. But you will find an advocate somewhere, right or worng I'm just presenting a hypothetical (and I enjoy non-partisan political banter), that will say that denying care to a U.S. citizen defies the 'Right to life' that is in the preamble to the constitution, but then again you and I have our 'Right to Liberty' to believe what we will.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, you make good points but some farfetched ones as well. But, hey, I'm sure I've said some wild stuff in my previos posts in this thread that you could point out if you wanted too.

 

[psychforme]

guess i am the only one who went into medicine to help people.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

guess i am the only one who went into medicine to help people.

Worrying about financial security when the opportunity cost is pretty high (many years of training, lots of debt, loss of 20s, numerous other unmeasurables, etc.) does not mean you don't care about helping people. You skipped a few steps in logic there.

 

[McPoyle]

guess i am the only one who went into medicine to help people.

thats pretty funny, I like satire-assuming you're not as pompous as this sounds.

 

[RoyBasch]

I'm not all that worried. I would rather be a student then a laid off research associate. I highly doubt that the future is as bleak for medicine as many paint it to be.

Heh, my thoughts exactly.
-Roy

 

[mazaag]

Whats this whole scare about? Reading all the posts on the thread makes me feel that no one has really looked at or listened to what is being proposed. The plan is to put a government option in the market so as to compete with insurance companies. There was nothing said about decreasing salaries for specialists..rather increasing salaries for GPs (rewarding them for preventative medicine..etc).
Someone on here was talking about how doctors will try to force their patients out to save the govt money. Actually in a non-profit sector that would not be the case...on the contrary. Insurance companies are the ones denying doctors from seeing patients by denying patients insurance. If you re goal is to maximize profits..well guess what the only way to cut cost is to cut patients.
If the AMA is behind this plan then for sure there are guarantees that salaries won't drop and that no restrictions will be placed on Drs. If anything it will go after people who are trying to make insane profits off of sick people. I hope we as a community are not one of them!

 

[novastorm]

Whats proposed doesn't fix anything. Whats proposed rations care simply because it fixes nothing, how else can you reduce costs? All it does is opens up medicare to everyone and then charges for it. So to make costs sustainable they are going to go to their old stalwart of cutting physician compensation I promise you. All those cases that someone put out earlier, if you consider some of this "outcomes/quality based reimbursement" wording you would be unable to charge any of those patients after their initial visit and all their follow ups would be free, because you know noncompliant patents are your fault. Oh and I forgot if you dont treat them how the government wants you to treat them they will pay you less or not at all too, medicare quality measures to the extreme.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Whats this whole scare about? Reading all the posts on the thread makes me feel that no one has really looked at or listened to what is being proposed. The plan is to put a government option in the market so as to compete with insurance companies. There was nothing said about decreasing salaries for specialists..rather increasing salaries for GPs (rewarding them for preventative medicine..etc).
Someone on here was talking about how doctors will try to force their patients out to save the govt money. Actually in a non-profit sector that would not be the case...on the contrary. Insurance companies are the ones denying doctors from seeing patients by denying patients insurance. If you re goal is to maximize profits..well guess what the only way to cut cost is to cut patients.
If the AMA is behind this plan then for sure there are guarantees that salaries won't drop and that no restrictions will be placed on Drs. If anything it will go after people who are trying to make insane profits off of sick people. I hope we as a community are not one of them!

Read the proposals for taxing small businesses, even if they provide a private option.

Poor taste, IMO. Small businesses are the backbone of America and this is going to really hurt them.

This coming from knowledge of having owned a small business and my spouse working in one with < 10 employees.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Whats this whole scare about? Reading all the posts on the thread makes me feel that no one has really looked at or listened to what is being proposed. The plan is to put a government option in the market so as to compete with insurance companies. There was nothing said about decreasing salaries for specialists..rather increasing salaries for GPs (rewarding them for preventative medicine..etc).
Someone on here was talking about how doctors will try to force their patients out to save the govt money. Actually in a non-profit sector that would not be the case...on the contrary. Insurance companies are the ones denying doctors from seeing patients by denying patients insurance. If you re goal is to maximize profits..well guess what the only way to cut cost is to cut patients.
If the AMA is behind this plan then for sure there are guarantees that salaries won't drop and that no restrictions will be placed on Drs. If anything it will go after people who are trying to make insane profits off of sick people. I hope we as a community are not one of them!

How the heck can a private company compete with the government? To quote what a college student asked of Obama, "How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes...How can a company compete with that?”

 

[Taurus]

Whats this whole scare about? Reading all the posts on the thread makes me feel that no one has really looked at or listened to what is being proposed. The plan is to put a government option in the market so as to compete with insurance companies. There was nothing said about decreasing salaries for specialists..rather increasing salaries for GPs (rewarding them for preventative medicine..etc).
Someone on here was talking about how doctors will try to force their patients out to save the govt money. Actually in a non-profit sector that would not be the case...on the contrary. Insurance companies are the ones denying doctors from seeing patients by denying patients insurance. If you re goal is to maximize profits..well guess what the only way to cut cost is to cut patients.
If the AMA is behind this plan then for sure there are guarantees that salaries won't drop and that no restrictions will be placed on Drs. If anything it will go after people who are trying to make insane profits off of sick people. I hope we as a community are not one of them!

I heard the govt was going to control dentist salaries by creating dental midlevels.

 

[Aveiro]

Well if things get too bad in the U.S. we always need more MD's in Canada...😉

 

[mdfirst]

in my opinion, I feel that the new healthcare reform agenda would be beneficial for most docs given that they will be able to see more patients, that they wouldnt have seen before because they couldnt afford it. This would subsequently increase their pay.

 

[TexasFight]

in my opinion, I feel that the new healthcare reform agenda would be beneficial for most docs given that they will be able to see more patients, that they wouldnt have seen before because they couldnt afford it. This would subsequently increase their pay.

Well, lets see. If you are seeing 20 patients a day at $40 a patient, you make $800 a day. You are already working 7 AM to 6 PM, by the way. Now the public option makes up a majority of your patients instead of private insurance patients. That pays at Medicare + 5%, so you get paid $32 a patient, seeing 25 patients a day (shortening their appointment time). Did you really make any more money? Or are you doing more work for the same salary?

 

[TexasFight]

Well if things get too bad in the U.S. we always need more MD's in Canada...😉

Are there any statistics on how many hours a Canadian doctor works per week?

 

[psychforme]

in my opinion, I feel that the new healthcare reform agenda would be beneficial for most docs given that they will be able to see more patients, that they wouldnt have seen before because they couldnt afford it. This would subsequently increase their pay.

Why did you change the font of your post?

 

[TRN1983]

in my opinion, I feel that the new healthcare reform agenda would be beneficial for most docs given that they will be able to see more patients, that they wouldnt have seen before because they couldnt afford it. This would subsequently increase their pay.

Well, you've got to factor in compensation rates. The gov't may fix compensation at some ridiculously low rate, so there is a distinct possibility that they'll be seeing more (not sick) people all the time (runny noses, etc) and getting paid considerably less.

 

[FolkDoc]

I see a lot of posts worried that the government is going to take control of the physician's autonomy. One post even stated to "get your head of the sand".

I would say that you all aren't practicing medicine, so you have no idea about autonomy.

As it is now--we have decreased autonomy. Private insurance companies with business men who there to "decrease costs" make decisions every day whether they are going to cover something or not--or approve procedures. Every day in this current system, I want to prescribe a medication but can't because the insurance company doesn't cover it or the patient has no insurance and can't afford $210/month for an inhaler.

Wake up everyone--people are already making our decisions for us every day whether it is the hospital system, the HMO's or other private insurance. At least medicaid--which is government run is actually easier to deal with most times than private insurance companies.

So don't go touting doom and gloom when practicing primary care in today's medicine is bad.

It's broken--it has to be fixed--for our patients and for our own sanity.

 

[TRN1983]

It's broken--it has to be fixed--for our patients and for our own sanity.

True, but just accepting anything as a replacement isn't acceptable. There are countless legitimate reasons to be concerned about the new bill.