BBC: Obama warns doctors over reforms

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
everyone wants more compensation no matter how valuable they think their work is. The reason people get riled up is that pre-meds claim people are greedy for not wanting their reimbursements cuts. They think they are so privileged to be able to be a doctor, when really its not, they earned it. I ve said before id much rather have the person who busted their ass learning and earned their spot as a physician, then someone who was "priviledged".

There are a lot of people who have earned the privilege of becoming a doctor who don't feel they need excess compensation beyond a "reasonable" amount. Or course, I agree with your point that everyone wants more compensation for their work, but people generally will agree that certain professions deserve more compensation than others. I was just trying to point out that doctors aren't always the top of that list, so perhaps we should take a more humble approach to our role in society and it's compensation system. That's all.
 
Just a few amused chuckles over here. It's just like taking sex tips from a virgin, that's all.

Well, when I start giving out advice about how to perform in medical school, by all means, ignore it. If you'll notice, I've done no such thing.
 
The statement "they deserve what they are currently earning" is a bit naive, considering how wide-ranging physician salaries are, even within the same specialty. How much should a GP earn to you? A cardiologist? Emergency doc? Do you think that a physcian's job is more important than a soldier's? What about a police officers? Both of those people are entrusted with the lives of others, they solve problems, and often provide some sort of emotional support to either comrades or victims, yet they earn a mere pittance compared to the average primary care doc, and even less so when compared to many specialists.

Why can't you be content with earning maybe 10-20% less (hypothetically), and knowing that everyone will have access to basic healthcare? The average GP would still clear $140,000.



No policy has been suggested here, in DC, or in any newspaper that would prevent you from doing this, even if you work as a primary care doc in a public hospital. Irrational fear isn't a good way to live your life. It makes you jittery.


Sorry if someone already addressed this, but you got it all wrong. Physician pay is not why medicine is expensive, it is insurance companies, paperwork, drug companies, and useless test. Furthermore, the point is not what physicians desire, rather it is to have valid compensation that will bring the best and smartest to the occupation. Imho physicians should make more because then the smartest and best students will be more inclined to become physicians. Also do not say they shouldn't be physicians because of the money because money is a motivator for everyone. If you disagree then your in denial because that is a main reason why you get a job.
00.gif
00.gif
 
There are a lot of people who have earned the privilege of becoming a doctor who don't feel they need excess compensation beyond a "reasonable" amount. Or course, I agree with your point that everyone wants more compensation for their work, but people generally will agree that certain professions deserve more compensation than others. I was just trying to point out that doctors aren't always the top of that list, so perhaps we should take a more humble approach to our role in society and it's compensation system. That's all.

You dont earn the privilege of being a doctor. Were you privileged enough to get the grades needed to get into medical school? No you worked for them, you werent just given good grades (at least i wasnt), you had to study the material, learn it and prove it on the test that you had mastered it, and earn those good grades. Did you have the privilege of taking the MCAT? I didnt, I had to pay for it, if i didnt then it would be a privilege. So you dont "earn the privilege to be a doctor" you earn the title of doctor.

And when you're working in the hospital you will earn your wages and probably not be happy when people try to chip away at your reimbursements year by year, because they dont want that money to come out of their pockets. O wait you said you were ok with that. Physicians have an important role in society, no matter where you or anybody else ranks them in the "soceities most important people list", as a result society wants their doctors highly trained and knowledgable. As a consequence of that it takes large compensation to commit people to such an arduous path. People may love their jobs, but lets not forget that jobs exist so people can make money to survive.

There is no group standing up for physicians, they have to stand up for themselves, and as future physicians we should be ready to get involved and help protect the profession so it can be great for us too. Saying youre ok with pay cuts etc. because of whatever preconceived notions (right or wrong) that you have is not protecting the profession.

Lets say reimbursements drop in your specialty as projected under obamas plan, You're ok with that but after X numbers there are less and less people going into the specialty as a result you have lots and lots of patients. Now you want to help those people but since you have so many and you want to see them all since they cant find another dr to see, you start moving them through like a conveyor belt. You become unhappy and so do your patients. This isnt a doomsday prophecy this is whats happening to primary care.

So since your already a medical student you should be starting the fight for the profession. And even if you dont care how much you make you should still fight against reimbursement cuts and other things like tort reform etc.

Well, when I start giving out advice about how to perform in medical school, by all means, ignore it. If you'll notice, I've done no such thing.

fair enough, then youre just that guy who brags about banging 18 chicks but really hasnt.
 
You dont earn the privilege of being a doctor. Were you privileged enough to get the grades needed to get into medical school? No you worked for them, you werent just given good grades (at least i wasnt), you had to study the material, learn it and prove it on the test that you had mastered it, and earn those good grades. Did you have the privilege of taking the MCAT? I didnt, I had to pay for it, if i didnt then it would be a privilege. So you dont "earn the privilege to be a doctor" you earn the title of doctor.

You're confusing two different definitions of the word privilege. It can mean exactly what you imply, that you were given something by means of your standing alone. It can also mean that enjoy, justly, all the benefits commensurate with your earned status. Please re-read my post in light of this new information.

And when you're working in the hospital you will earn your wages and probably not be happy when people try to chip away at your reimbursements year by year, because they dont want that money to come out of their pockets. O wait you said you were ok with that. Physicians have an important role in society, no matter where you or anybody else ranks them in the "soceities most important people list", as a result society wants their doctors highly trained and knowledgable. As a consequence of that it takes large compensation to commit people to such an arduous path. People may love their jobs, but lets not forget that jobs exist so people can make money to survive.

I don't recall any decline in physician quality over the past several decades in societies that experienced a physician salary decline, namely England, Sweden, and France. Given, their education is largely paid for by the government, but this is countered to some extent by lower salaries and less autonomy. Can you explain why these nations still produce high calibur physicians?

There is no group standing up for physicians,

AMA.

Lets say reimbursements drop in your specialty as projected under obamas plan, You're ok with that but after X numbers there are less and less people going into the specialty as a result you have lots and lots of patients. No you want to help those people but since you have so many and you want to see them all since they cant find another dr to see, you start moving them through like a conveyor belt. You become unhappy and so do your patients. This isnt a doomsday prophecy this is whats happening to primary care.

Alright, I'll counter your hypothetical situation with another, which is just as likely and has just as much evidence to support it as yours:

Reimbursement drops marginally for specialists. At the same time, reimbursement is raised a small bit for primary care. Thus, more graduating students find primary care worth the commitment. This new found availability of GPs engenders a national movement toward preventative care starting at the GP level, thus decreasing the number of emergent cases that require specialist attention, leaving the patient base at roughly the same level for those specialists.

So since your already a medical student you should be starting the fight for the profession. And even if you dont care how much you make you should still fight against reimbursement cuts and other things like tort reform etc.

Why should I fight for what YOU feel is "right" for the profession? I personally feel that what is "right" is balancing adequate patient care and access with reimbursement. I think we should throttle the private industry and nationalise the lot of them. Supporting what you suggest would fly in the face of my ideology.



fair enough, then youre just that guy who brags about banging 18 chicks but really hasnt.

I don't follow your logic. I haven't claimed anything that isn't readily apparent and supported by official channels. I am a medical student, I have not started formal first year classes. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Are you trying to get at something, just bitter, or looking for a chance to practice your flame technique?
 
You're confusing two different definitions of the word privilege. It can mean exactly what you imply, that you were given something by means of your standing alone. It can also mean that enjoy, justly, all the benefits commensurate with your earned status. Please re-read my post in light of this new information.

Privliege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

According to your wording, a privilege of being a doctor would be cutting people up, since if you did this while you werent a doctor you would be thrown in jail for assult or wutever. However, that doesnt change the fact that you earned the title of doctor and thats not a privilege.


I don't recall any decline in physician quality over the past several decades in societies that experienced a physician salary decline, namely England, Sweden, and France. Given, their education is largely paid for by the government, but this is countered to some extent by lower salaries and less autonomy. Can you explain why these nations still produce high calibur physicians?

Their medical education is sibsized heavily or free, they dont have to deal with as much ligitation, they dont have to put up with as much paperwork, and they work less hours.

When I was in ireland, the equivlent of residents were on strike.



from what ive been told the AMA is out of touch with many physicians and physicians feel they should be doing more.

Alright, I'll counter your hypothetical situation with another, which is just as likely and has just as much evidence to support it as yours:

Reimbursement drops marginally for specialists. At the same time, reimbursement is raised a small bit for primary care. Thus, more graduating students find primary care worth the commitment. This new found availability of GPs engenders a national movement toward preventative care starting at the GP level, thus decreasing the number of emergent cases that require specialist attention, leaving the patient base at roughly the same level for those specialists.

Ok, so there is ~47 million uninsured and ~250 million insured (have access). Of those 47million about 25-30% can afford coverage but dont want it because they are young or have other priorities. 11.5 million are eligible for assitance programs but arent enrolled. Subtract illegal immigrants (which I dont mind covering per se, but with costs spirling out of control citizens must be covered first) and the number of uninsured is less than 20 million.

So we still have ~250 million people who have acces to preventative care, but costs are still so high and specialists are still needed. Since the plan is to provide ~10% more than medicare, in my theorethical situation, people will find the extra time and trainning necessary to specialize to not be worth it given the lower reimbursement. Thus patients will still need specialists and there will be fewer of those and as a result the shortage will shift from PCPs to specialists.

Why should I fight for what YOU feel is "right" for the profession? I personally feel that what is "right" is balancing adequate patient care and access with reimbursement. I think we should throttle the private industry and nationalise the lot of them. Supporting what you suggest would fly in the face of my ideology.

fair enough. but adequate patient care and reimbursement are issues related in a way opposite of the way your portraying it. As reimbursement went down PCPs either blow through patients which sacrifices quality of care, so that they can make the same amount as they did last year but doing more work to get it. Or they shut their doors, also negatively affecting patients access to adequate care. Medical students also started to go into other specialties creating a shortage of these doctors and decreasing access to care even more.

Medical school seats are now increasing to combat shortages, but while work environment dissatisfaction to payment ratio remains high people wont enter these specialties.




I don't follow your logic. I haven't claimed anything that isn't readily apparent and supported by official channels. I am a medical student, I have not started formal first year classes. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Are you trying to get at something, just bitter, or looking for a chance to practice your flame technique?

youre right im being insensitive. So how do you like being a medical student sso far? Is it as tough as everyone says?
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know, but I mean it just seems like that's the way America works. Until the ship is literally sinking and half underwater, only then does our government actually step in and do what it should have done when the ship first sprung a leak.

But yea, I really doubt there will come a time where physicians quit in droves causing a huge shortage.


This is the problem with so many people in America today, you rely on the government to fix your problems. This is a joke.

The government should not be sticking its nose in the private sector. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Do you really want to know who those 42 to 43 million uninsured are? They are mostly 18-32 year olds who don't want to pay for insurance, but make plenty of money to do so, they just opt not to because they don't foresee medical problems, they're invincible. Then there is the smaller group of individuals who truly can't afford medical coverage, for those folks there is always indigent care of one sort or another. Sure your care might not be as great, but comparatively to socialized medicine I think the care is just fine, especially when someone else is footing the bill for you...

This whole thing strikes a nerve in me. Why should doctors take a pay cut? Because everyone else wants an easy way out of another bill? Americans are lazy. They don't want to work for anything and expect the government to front the bill, then when someone does earn a nice living they chastize them and rake them over the coals in taxes... I've got to stop, because my blood is starting to boil... [/rant]
 
There are four main problems:

1) The federal government created the current HMO system with legislation as well as the current Medicaid/care systems. These systems have legal leverage to minimize payments for individual procedures like woah. They also prevent limited insurance plans that would be more affordable but would cover basic treatment but not high cost low gain procedures.

2) Doctors do not have any power to fight for wages and must simply accept the pay offered per procedure by these companies. This drives quality doctors to cash practice AND most importantly leads to over proceduralization, because that's the only way anyone can maintain their take home pay.

3) Malpractice suits target doctors and cost money for unfortunate circumstances that hardly merit true legal negligence, especially given the demands of the medical profession. Hindsight and an autopsy are given too much weight. Thus: over proceduralization to protect your butt and make back the extra money you pay in insurance.

4) Many uninsured people (not all, but many) choose to spend money on things like cable instead of a yearly physical exam. A little known fact is that if you can't afford a $X00/month insurance premium, you can still practice preventative health care that you might be able to afford that would save the system a ton of money and improve your health in the long run.

5) Many people here live unhealthy lives. As long as kids are being raised on McD's and the internet instead of home cooking and baseball, we're going to be spending a ton of money on healthcare as a country.

Thus, it is actually our government (and some selfish people) which is entirely to blame for the healthcare crisis. By legislatively empowering insurance companies to effectively price set and preventing doctors from having a say and allowing medical errors that are not due to true gross negligence to result in massive lawsuits, we have our current system. But we can totally fix it with a few MORE legislation. Hopefully it'll work as well as social security does... oh wait, it's about to go bankrupt!
 
OK so when I first started reading about all of this I thought it was going to be helping poor people. I am sure it will help poor people but the cut off is proposed to be 88,000 or 110,000. Seriously, if you are making that much money and don't have health insurance it is your own stupid fault. My family of 5 makes like 8?,000/year and we go on vacations and go out to dinner, my siblings are in tons of sports, my parents helped me with some college expenses. They also have health insurance. Bottom line is these people really don't need the help. Maybe the 1 trillion dollars that need to be raised would be lowered if only people who need help would be helped.
 
There are four main problems:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Nice counting, Lou.

Look, some of the things you have described are problematic, but the fundamental issue is that our nation has failed to adopt a unified model for health care delivery. If you have a minute, I would refer you to Timothy Noah's review of T. R. Reid's upcoming book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. That book grew out of his very interesting Sick Around The World series on PBS (you can watch the program online for free).
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Our current system is too broken for charity to be able to absorb the uninsured. I believe 10% against 250-350k is small, thats IMO of course. I believe it pales if compared to the fact that MCARE/MCAID have not increased reimbursements since 2001. Effectively doctors who have a large percentage of patients covered under those plans have not had raises in 8 years. Put that against inflation (Dollar losing 50% of its value since 2001) and increases in the cost of living, and they are losing out on much more than 10% presently, even if it appears that their salaries haven't changed. I do not believe in price fixing what so ever, I was just speaking to the fact that losing that amount of income is relatively insignificant passed the 250k mark (assuming you are not over extended).

I believe Obama's intentions are genuine and that he thinks his solution will do a lot of good. Unfortunately I disagree with him. As a libertarian I dont believe that the government really does anything better than the private sector in a TRUE free market environment. I have said this in other threads so I apologize if I sound like a broken record. 1970s ERISA&HMO act, unfairly advantage the HMOs against the private insurers, cases inequities in the market. In addition, MCARE/MCAID artifically lower reimbursements below what the market would ordinarily dictate, further exacerbating the problems. Adding onto all of this, doctors are prohibited from advertising their prices to the public, making it impossible for the free market to function in healthcare, if consumers(patients) cannot effectively shop around for the best deals, "greedy" doctors can price gouge the **** out of people, as is surely being done in some instances.

Asserting that the free market has "failed" healthcare is patently UNTRUE. The free market has never been given an opportunity to improve healthcare. I would not agree with salary caps on physicians, but if the free market is given an opportunity to enter healthcare and the market decides to pay doctors less, I would have no problem with it. It's worth noting many charities had to close down and stop providing care because of the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance, so for Obama to claim tort reform is unnecessary is offensive.

Say what you want about Obama's plan, but to call for a "free market" solution to health care is madness. Health care is a monopsonistic and oligopolistic industry, with extremely inelastic demand, both for the industry and for individual hospitals. Supply is artificially restricted by licensing requirements (not saying they're a bad thing), and barriers to entry are astronomical. A true, "free market" system of health care would lead to high quality care at astronimical prices for few, low quality care at high prices for some, and no care for many due to the oligopolistic nature of the market (price collusion among firms and producing at intersection of Marginal revenue and Marginal Cost, not Price and Marginal cost), and the inelastic nature of health care demand (increasing costs increases revenues due to lack of passable health care substitutes).

The fact is that if you believe that access to basic health care is a right as I do, then there has to be government involvement. We can continue doing what we are doing providing high cost, low quality universal health care through forcing ERs to accept all patients, or we can provide lower cost, higher quality care through mandatory health coverage subsidized in a progressive manner. Physicians salaries need not decrease in such a case, as demand for their services will increase, and supply is constrained in the short run due to limited med school spots.

And my other 2c. From talking to health care economists, I would estimate that health care costs are higher now as a % of GDP than in the 60s, and rising for the following reasons with the following weights

1. Doctors make more now than in the 60s, which accounts for ~10%
2. Malpractice going insane and raising costs. (~10%)
3. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs (~10%)
4-10. People living longer and recieving more health services while their alive (70%)

Whats important isn't that health care costs stay the same. If we live longer and want better care, we should expect to pay more. Whats important is that we are getting our money's worth. For example. Cardiac stenting has been shown to increase the average cost of a heart attack treatment by $10,000. Its also been shown to increase post MI lifespan by 1 year on average. thus we are buying another year of life for 10k. Current estimates value a Quality adjusted life year at 50k. Thus this treatment is a bargain and we should do more of them.
 
Say what you want about Obama's plan, but to call for a "free market" solution to health care is madness. Health care is a monopsonistic and oligopolistic industry, with extremely inelastic demand, both for the industry and for individual hospitals. Supply is artificially restricted by licensing requirements (not saying they're a bad thing), and barriers to entry are astronomical. A true, "free market" system of health care would lead to high quality care at astronimical prices for few, low quality care at high prices for some, and no care for many due to the oligopolistic nature of the market (price collusion among firms and producing at intersection of Marginal revenue and Marginal Cost, not Price and Marginal cost), and the inelastic nature of health care demand (increasing costs increases revenues due to lack of passable health care substitutes).

The fact is that if you believe that access to basic health care is a right as I do, then there has to be government involvement. We can continue doing what we are doing providing high cost, low quality universal health care through forcing ERs to accept all patients, or we can provide lower cost, higher quality care through mandatory health coverage subsidized in a progressive manner. Physicians salaries need not decrease in such a case, as demand for their services will increase, and supply is constrained in the short run due to limited med school spots.

And my other 2c. From talking to health care economists, I would estimate that health care costs are higher now as a % of GDP than in the 60s, and rising for the following reasons with the following weights

1. Doctors make more now than in the 60s, which accounts for ~10%
2. Malpractice going insane and raising costs. (~10%)
3. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs (~10%)
4-10. People living longer and recieving more health services while their alive (70%)

Whats important isn't that health care costs stay the same. If we live longer and want better care, we should expect to pay more. Whats important is that we are getting our money's worth. For example. Cardiac stenting has been shown to increase the average cost of a heart attack treatment by $10,000. Its also been shown to increase post MI lifespan by 1 year on average. thus we are buying another year of life for 10k. Current estimates value a Quality adjusted life year at 50k. Thus this treatment is a bargain and we should do more of them.

well I dont think healthcare is a right. You have the right to take care of yourself but not to demand someone else takes care of u. However I do believe level of healhcare is a mark of the state of the society. As such our society should try to take care of our poor. I agree that free- market economics won't work because as a society we try to hold to a high standard. But to say that doctors salaries will stay the same because they get to work more means that their salaries HAVE DECREASED.
 
Last edited:
Take a good long hard look at those that are a few years down the road from you. Take a look at a recent discussion thread that I posted from Sermo.com - that is restricted to licensed U.S. physicians only.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=638697

You guys need to wake up. Altruism is one thing, but being enslaved by the system is another.

Living within your means and paying back those gargantuan loans is getting more and more difficult....
 
Last edited:
QUOTING DOSTUPA:

Choosing a career in medicine will never be a bad financial investment. If it becomes hard to repay debt in the United States (which will never happen, as the AMA will throw a ****-fit), you have a degree and advanced training that allows you to work in many, many fields with varying degrees of compensation and time comittment. Not a bad deal, if you ask me, as I sit here with my worthless BS in genetics

Please read my thread from sermo....your colleagues that are 10 years ahead of you beg to differ with your assessment: 1) It is ALREADY hard to repay medical school debt. 2) The AMA is impotent to stop this....hopefully divided amongst itself.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=638697

Do you realize, that the congress as of July 1, 2009 has legislated MANDATORY repayment of medical student loans while in residency rather than allowing for deferment and forebearance. Your wake up will be when the week after graduation, they hand you a pager that you'll carry for 3-10 years of 80 hours/week work, making minimum wage per hour, no benefits, no ability to save for retirement (or anything else), AND your first LOAN REPAYMENT coupon. Good luck and I hope you've got a rich uncle.
 
Last edited:
QUOTING DOSTUPA:
congress as of July 1, 2009 has legislated MANDATORY repayment of medical student loans while in residency rather than allowing for deferment and forebearance. Your wake up will be when the week after graduation, they hand you a pager that you'll carry for 3-10 years of 80 hours/week work, making minimum wage per hour, no benefits, no ability to save for retirement (or anything else), AND your first LOAN REPAYMENT coupon. Good luck and I hope you've got a rich uncle.

Ouch! Thank goodness nobody goes into medicine for the money or lifestyle. Throughout history, there have been plenty of people who have chosen a life of asceticism. We, as future physicians will be no different.
 
Top Bottom