Avoid stating certain opinions in interviews?

[tncekm]

It' all fine and dandy that the underprivileged should receive care for free, and that those who can afford it should pay. The only problem is to tell those millions of people who can pay that they have to pay while some get it free.

The huge problem however lies in government funding for this free healthcare. The government, especially right now, doesn't have the money to contribute. Another solution would be to raise taxes, but Dubya promised he wouldn't, and most conservatives are opposed to it.

Finally, in France and other free healthcare countries, doctors salaries are VERY low compared to docs in the US. While many US doc are willing to take a slight pay cut, I doubt most would accept one as large as those forced upon "Free healthcare doctors".

It always comes down to money...

Either way, either the government/docs or the underprivileged are getting the short end of it...

Great points. the other thing to consider is that not only will they take a cut in pay, but they will also get an increase in their taxes! Doctors will be raped in this deal. It will probably push a lot of people out of the profession because nobody wants to go what doctors go through for an average salary. (And that doesn't mean you're in it for the money either...at some point you can give too much of your own life and time away.)

I will challenge anybody who says "money hungry" doctors leaving medicine won't effect anything b/c the best doctors are the ones who want to be there by asking them to closely examine any sector of a communist economy whre the incentive to excel via pay is removed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Great points. the other thing to consider is that not only will they take a cut in pay, but they will also get an increase in their taxes! Doctors will be raped in this deal. It will probably push a lot of people out of the profession because nobody wants to go what doctors go through for an average salary. (And that doesn't mean you're in it for the money either...at some point you can give too much of your own life and time away.)

I will challenge anybody who says "money hungry" doctors leaving medicine won't effect anything b/c the best doctors are the ones who want to be there by asking them to closely examine any sector of a communist economy whre the incentive to excel via pay is removed.

Other countries with lower medical salaries still find folks to go into medicine. While the financial incentives currently in medicine (albeit waning) encourage some of the best and brightest in, there are tens of thousands currently who are not getting into med school, going to carribean, etc. You can lower the salary threshold, as long as you are willing to accept that the credentials for admission will likely drop somewhat. The breaking point at which folks will stop going into medicine is significantly lower than it's at right now-- you could probably lower salaries by 30-40% and still have ample takers. The question is do you want the best care for some, or just the best we can afford for everyone. There are benefits to each.

 

[ND2005]

In every interview I've been in where the topic was raised, I was asked how I would solve this problem if I was eg., the Surgeon General. Having solutions would be a good thing.

When I was asked that question, I said something along the lines of "I wish I could give you an easy answer. But if the situation were simple enough that a 23 year-old who isn't even a doctor yet could know how to fix it, it would have been fixed already". My interviewer really seeemed to like that response (and I got in that school).

 

[Law2Doc]

When I was asked that question, I said something along the lines of "I wish I could give you an easy answer. But if the situation were simple enough that a 23 year-old who isn't even a doctor yet could know how to fix it, it would have been fixed already". My interviewer really seeemed to like that response (and I got in that school).

A lot of interviewers would not let you off the hook that easy.

 

[*sunny*]

someone mentioned earlier the healthcare system in india. there are a ton of free hospitals that provide lots of care for free with the exception of advanced procedures-especially cardiac care.

the reason for this? they need patients for their medical schools. many hospitals are set up first where there is "free care" then schools are created. 1/4-1/2 are "selected" students who can go to school almost for free. the rest of the student's are "pay in." so if you are indian and have about 40,000+ american dollars a year you essentially can buy your way in to medical school (no amcas!) and your money goes right back into the affiliated hospital.

 

[ND2005]

A lot of interviewers would not let you off the hook that easy.

That wasn't the whole conversation. We actually ended up talking about healthcare for a good 5 minutes.

I just think a lot of people come off really arrogant, acting like they know all the answers to a ridiculously complicated situation.

 

[Law2Doc]

That wasn't the whole conversation. We actually ended up talking about healthcare for a good 5 minutes.

I just think a lot of people come off really arrogant, acting like they know all the answers to a ridiculously complicated situation.

Agree. Arrogant is bad. Head in the sand would would be bad too. You need to answer the question with an opinion that doesn't sound like you are right and everyone else is foolish. But I don't see this as the hot area of concern for arrogance--
Mainly arrogance is an issue when folks regard a school as a safety/backup or take the attitude that the school would be lucky to have them, rather than the other way round. In truth, no matter what your stats, you need to be selling yourself like you are a mom & pop dimestore across the street from a Walmart.

 

[sanche60]

Who do you think controls healthcare right now? Pretty much all physicians work for reimbursements from insurance companies. They are the bosses now. As soon as someone funds healthcare for the uninsured, there will be more clients but the bosses stay the same - the insurance companies still benefit. Both you and the prior poster are looking at this the wrong way -- the big companies would love universal coverage because it doesn't take them out of the picture, it gives them more clients, more control. They are the middleman for medical care, and are quite entrenched -- they won't be replaced in such a system, the government will work through them.

Thats somewhat untrue. If you look at countries with universal healthcare systems, they typically spend less on healthcare. Physician and company incomes are all decreased as a result. Thats what spawns the whole universal healthcare argument, the nations that implement it typically spend less of their budget on medicine. I wasnt really suggesting that they would be cut out of the loop entirely, moreso that they would lose money, so they would oppose that type of legislature wholeheartedly. I see your point though, so who really knows for sure.

 

[sanche60]

Great points. the other thing to consider is that not only will they take a cut in pay, but they will also get an increase in their taxes! Doctors will be raped in this deal. It will probably push a lot of people out of the profession because nobody wants to go what doctors go through for an average salary. (And that doesn't mean you're in it for the money either...at some point you can give too much of your own life and time away.)

I will challenge anybody who says "money hungry" doctors leaving medicine won't effect anything b/c the best doctors are the ones who want to be there by asking them to closely examine any sector of a communist economy whre the incentive to excel via pay is removed.

Good point, but dont canadian med students go to school for free? that cuts some bills down for them even though they dont make as much as a result of universal healthcare.

 

[MinnyGophers]

Good point, but dont canadian med students go to school for free? that cuts some bills down for them even though they dont make as much as a result of universal healthcare.

That's a good point also. U.S. docs would never take such a pay cut with the amount of loans they would have to pay back.... So if we want to change the system, we would also have to change the way med school would be financed/ or not...

 

[Law2Doc]

Thats somewhat untrue. If you look at countries with universal healthcare systems, they typically spend less on healthcare. Physician and company incomes are all decreased as a result. Thats what spawns the whole universal healthcare argument, the nations that implement it typically spend less of their budget on medicine. I wasnt really suggesting that they would be cut out of the loop entirely, moreso that they would lose money, so they would oppose that type of legislature wholeheartedly. I see your point though, so who really knows for sure.

I don't think any of the bills currently bandied around Congress these days are actually trying to make the US system more similar to other countries. I also think the lessening of healthcare costs and universal health care coverage issues are distinct issues, and will be attacked as such -- we will likely get the latter long before we get the former. It is hoped that a healthier group of underserved will cost us less, but the aging baby boomers screw up any chances of lowering healthcare costs in the near term. Insurance company incomes go up if they get to implement a universal health care system -- they take federal money to cover currently uncovered people. Physician income will likely go down if this happens because insurers set the prices and will now have much more leverage. that's my guess of how this plays out.

 

[kypdurron5]

Who do you think controls healthcare right now? Pretty much all physicians work for reimbursements from insurance companies. They are the bosses now. As soon as someone funds healthcare for the uninsured, there will be more clients but the bosses stay the same - the insurance companies still benefit. Both you and the prior poster are looking at this the wrong way -- the big companies would love universal coverage because it doesn't take them out of the picture, it gives them more clients, more control. They are the middleman for medical care, and are quite entrenched -- they won't be replaced in such a system, the government will work through them.

That is a better analysis than the previous post (from the other guy), but I still think that inflammatory statements like "[Big pharma/Health insurance companies] are the bosses now" should be avoided. It's true that since medical services are so expensive, the companies that reimburse those expenses have a certain about of control over what doctors may and may not do and still have it covered under insurance. But to say that insurance companies are the bosses of doctors is taking it one step too far. This thread is about what to avoid saying during an interview, and it's my opinion that statements like that should be avoided.

There is nothing wrong with the rest of the post though, in fact, I completely agree. Insurance companies would benefit, profit, and even expand if we went to socialized healthcare. Just look at medicare. Doesn't anyone think it's strange that this "government" sponsored insurance for the elderly is outsourced to private insurance companies? We'd see the exact same thing under socialized medicine, except now it would be the government saying what is and what is not covered rather than the insurance companies. Government would also set reimbursement rates. That has proven to be worse than the present system as far as doctors are concerned...it's only better in that it would expand the number of people who can receive "free" basic healthcare.

 

[Law2Doc]

That is a better analysis than the previous post (from the other guy), but I still think that inflammatory statements like "[Big pharma/Health insurance companies] are the bosses now" should be avoided. It's true that since medical services are so expensive, the companies that reimburse those expenses have a certain about of control over what doctors may and may not do and still have it covered under insurance. But to say that insurance companies are the bosses of doctors is taking it one step too far. This thread is about what to avoid saying during an interview, and it's my opinion that statements like that should be avoided.

Oh I agree completely that you wouldn't want to talk about the doctor- insurance company reimbursement dynamic -- that shows too much focus on money for an interview. But you can talk about the likelihood of universal healthcare coverage. I was just refuting folks who took issue with this being something that is inevitable, or something the insurance companies would object to. They want it and are pushing for it.

 

[sanche60]

I also think the lessening of healthcare costs and universal health care coverage issues are distinct issues...

I gotta disagree with you on that. I think the issues are one in the same. Universal healthcare drives down the cost of healthcare through the utilization of preventative measures. People who have no insurance end up in the er with a serious disease and end up spending thousands, when the problem usually could have been solved for probably less than a few hundred, had they been able to have access to regular healthcare. That drives up the price of healthcare and makes even less people capable of affording it. Its a self-perpetuating cycle that continues to grow out of control. The only thing holding this problem in check is programs like medicare and medicaid that continuously take on more and more people. Again, thats just my opinion cuz its kind of hard to present all emcompassing fact on this issue.

Uninsured is the first percentage, the second is the percent of people under medicaid
2004
15.7%
12.9%
2003
15.6%
12.4%
2002
15.2%
11.6%
2001
14.6%
11.2%
2000
14.2%
10.6%

 

[Law2Doc]

Universal healthcare drives down the cost of healthcare through the utilization of preventative measures.

Oh, I agree with you on this point. But what is going to drive healthcare costs over the next few decades is not diseases of the uninsured. It is those aging baby boomers, many of whom actually do have some level of insurance, but unlikely adequate to cover a lot of geriatric maladies and cancers. So it's like pulling over the speeding car, but ignoring the speeding bus right behind it.

 

[sanche60]

Oh, I agree with you on this point. But what is going to drive healthcare costs over the next few decades is not diseases of the uninsured. It is those aging baby boomers, many of whom actually do have some level of insurance, but unlikely adequate to cover a lot of geriatric maladies and cancers. So it's like pulling over the speeding car, but ignoring the speeding bus right behind it.

Very good point. I still think its hard to ignore the effects that would result from changing the insurance status of 16% of americans though.

 

[kypdurron5]

I gotta disagree with you on that. I think the issues are one in the same. Universal healthcare drives down the cost of healthcare through the utilization of preventative measures. People who have no insurance end up in the er with a serious disease and end up spending thousands, when the problem usually could have been solved for probably less than a few hundred, had they been able to have access to regular healthcare. That drives up the price of healthcare and makes even less people capable of affording it. Its a self-perpetuating cycle that continues to grow out of control. The only thing holding this problem in check is programs like medicare and medicaid that continuously take on more and more people. Again, that's just my opinion cuz its kind of hard to present all encompassing fact on this issue.

Indeed it is. You've outlined only one type of illness, the type which can be prevented and gets worse over time leading to an acute episode. Yet you've used this to suggest that SM would lower healthcare costs by simply by reducing this one type of problem. That is a leap. First of all, most ER visits don't require thousands of dollars. Most of the people visiting the ER are there simply because they didn't get sick between 9-5 Monday through Friday when their doctor's offices were open. A second very large number are the people in the ER for acute, accident related trauma. Now sure, there might be someone there with a gangrenous toe because they didn't take care of their diabetes...but let's face it, that's the kind of person who wouldn't bother going to the doctor even under socialized medicine. If he couldn't be bothered to care for his condition now, what makes you think someone like that would care for their condition under other circumstances? Besides; the costliest, most financially devastating conditions are Cancer, AIDS, organ transplants, etc. These are the true high-cost items and have nothing to do with preventative medicine.

 

[sanche60]

Indeed it is. You've outlined only one type of illness, the type which can be prevented and gets worse over time leading to an acute episode. Yet you've used this to suggest that SM would lower healthcare costs by simply by reducing this one type of problem. That is a leap. First of all, most ER visits don't require thousands of dollars. Most of the people visiting the ER are there simply because they didn't get sick between 9-5 Monday through Friday when their doctor's offices were open. A second very large number are the people in the ER for acute, accident related trauma. Now sure, there might be someone there with a gangrenous toe because they didn't take care of their diabetes...but let's face it, that's the kind of person who wouldn't bother going to the doctor even under socialized medicine. If he couldn't be bothered to care for his condition now, what makes you think someone like that would care for their condition under other circumstances? Besides; the costliest, most financially devastating conditions are Cancer, AIDS, organ transplants, etc. These are the true high-cost items and have nothing to do with preventative medicine.

Youre right, i embellished a little. the average er cost is like 560 dollars. but even the costs of things you outlined like cancer, aids, etc. can minimized or eliminated to a certain extent by prevention. although the proejcted medicare population is expected to balloon to 77 million(i think?) with the maturation of the baby boomers, they still have some coverage, so saying that they are a more important driving force in the financial picture compared to the 47 million uninsured, who have absolutely no coverage, may not be completely fair either. Truth is, i dont know that there are statistics out which would be able to make that comparison, but i think both issues are extremely important. My head hurts, so im done rambling. take care.