Best President in terms of salaries for Physicians?

[RB_Dez]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?



Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?


Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psai]

Premed questions go to the premed section

 

[Jabbed]

I miss Rand.

 

[Law2Doc]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?

Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?

Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

Actually it's Cruz/Rubio who want to get rid of Obamacare -- they are the loyal republicans. Which is kind of funny since Obamacare borrowed heavily from Mitt Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program -- it was a Republican idea which Republicans only hate because the Democrats adopted it. It's unclear what Trump's real views are because, best I can tell, he's kind of saying whatever comes to his mind at the moment, good or bad. What is clear is he won't be a "good republican" and cow-tow to the party line, which perhaps leaves him open to other ideas. Or he might just let Dr Oz and Dr. Dre compete on TV to be our next Surgeon General -- who knows. He's a true wildcard.

Bernie will have doctors working for peanuts. He's the absolute worst option for anyone focused on their income. You can't earn a nice doctors salary giving out free care. However Hillary as First Lady was part of the administrative effort that put insurance companies and HMOs in charge of US health care and intentionally opted to not have any physicians on their steering committee (several nurses were invited in instead). So she apparently has the view that doctors are part of the problem, and that can't be good for us. The only saving grace is that she is fine with Obamacare, so we won't expect many drastic changes.

So basically no great options left for doctors. The loyal republicans are more likely to scrap Obamacare, HRC is most likely to keep things the same. And nobody really knows WTF Trump will do, including Trump.

 

[Anicetus]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?



Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?


Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

Do you really need to think about this one?
Bernie sanders and other dems for that matter will try very hard to get the top 2% household incomes (doctors and their spouses) to contribute more to pay for his stuff/fix the deficit. He has personally said he doesn't believe people should be living in luxury when there are so many Americans living in poverty.

If you wanna vote with your wallet, republican is usually the way to go for lower taxes for the rich (doctors again), regardless of what medical system we switch to. However if did have trump or another repub, we'd have to settle with the amount of baggage they come with.

 

[Law2Doc]

doctors unfortunately will be put in the position that what's best for us personally might not be best for the country.

 

[bashwell]

Actually it's Cruz/Rubio who want to get rid of Obamacare -- they are the loyal republicans. Which is kind of funny since Obamacare borrowed heavily from Mitt Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program -- it was a Republican idea which Republicans only hate because the Democrats adopted it. It's unclear what Trump's real views are because, best I can tell, he's kind of saying whatever comes to his mind at the moment, good or bad. What is clear is he won't be a "good republican" and cow-tow to the party line, which perhaps leaves him open to other ideas. Or he might just let Dr Oz and Dr. Dre compete on TV to be our next Surgeon General -- who knows. He's a true wildcard.

Bernie will have doctors working for peanuts. He's the absolute worst option for anyone focused on their income. You can't earn a nice doctors salary giving out free care. However Hillary as First Lady was part of the administrative effort that put insurance companies and HMOs in charge of US health care and intentionally opted to not have any physicians on their steering committee (several nurses were invited in instead). So she apparently has the view that doctors are part of the problem, and that can't be good for us. The only saving grace is that she is fine with Obamacare, so we won't expect many drastic changes.

So basically no great options left for doctors. The loyal republicans are more likely to scrap Obamacare, HRC is most likely to keep things the same. And nobody really knows WTF Trump will do, including Trump.

To be fair, many Republicans think Romney is a "RINO" = Republican in name only. At best, they view him as a moderate Republican. These Republicans wouldn't have been on board with Romney's healthcare plan. There's a huge divide between "establishment" Republicans and others like the Tea Party. Trump may end up destroying the GOP though, which might be interesting to watch if it happens. Agree with everything else you said.

 

[Law2Doc]

To be fair, many Republicans think Romney is a "RINO" = Republican in name only. At best, they view him as a moderate Republican. These Republicans wouldn't have been on board with Romney's healthcare plan...

Meh, that's the view now that he lost. Wasn't when he was their guy.

And I think we are seeing with the rise of Trump over traditionalists like Cruz that the far right republicans aren't at all on the same page as their constituents.

 

[Apollo1]

which president is best for us?

will that lower our salaries

Is it "we" already?

 

[chompsss]

Actually it's Cruz/Rubio who want to get rid of Obamacare -- they are the loyal republicans. Which is kind of funny since Obamacare borrowed heavily from Mitt Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program -- it was a Republican idea which Republicans only hate because the Democrats adopted it. It's unclear what Trump's real views are because, best I can tell, he's kind of saying whatever comes to his mind at the moment, good or bad. What is clear is he won't be a "good republican" and cow-tow to the party line, which perhaps leaves him open to other ideas. Or he might just let Dr Oz and Dr. Dre compete on TV to be our next Surgeon General -- who knows. He's a true wildcard.

Bernie will have doctors working for peanuts. He's the absolute worst option for anyone focused on their income. You can't earn a nice doctors salary giving out free care. However Hillary as First Lady was part of the administrative effort that put insurance companies and HMOs in charge of US health care and intentionally opted to not have any physicians on their steering committee (several nurses were invited in instead). So she apparently has the view that doctors are part of the problem, and that can't be good for us. The only saving grace is that she is fine with Obamacare, so we won't expect many drastic changes.

So basically no great options left for doctors. The loyal republicans are more likely to scrap Obamacare, HRC is most likely to keep things the same. And nobody really knows WTF Trump will do, including Trump.

This is about the best analysis of Trump that I've seen. Nailed it.

 

[Tenk]

Sanders <<<< Clinton < Anyone else.

 

[bashwell]

Meh, that's the view now that he lost. Wasn't when he was their guy.

Actually, I distinctly remember many Republicans at the time didn't want Romney to be the nominee, called him a RINO or moderate at the time, etc. For example, it's easy enough to do a Google search for articles dated 2011-2012.

And I think we are seeing with the rise of Trump over traditionalists like Cruz that the far right republicans aren't at all on the same page as their constituents.

I think it's a lot more complex than that. But it'd take a lengthier reply to get into it. Just a quick note: Cruz is actually still getting 20%-25% of the votes in his own party. Likewise, Rubio is actually pretty far right (e.g., here, here), far more right than Romney, and he's getting about 20%-25% too. Carson is pretty far right too. And Trump most likely isn't far right at all, but a lot of his rhetoric is far right (e.g., build a wall between the US and Mexico, deport 12 million illegal immigrants), and he does appeal to a significant number of far right voters too (as well as many others).

 

[CherryRedDracul]

Sanders <<<< Clinton < Anyone else.

I am not sure if you forgot which way the alligator faces.

 

[Tenk]

I am not sure if you forgot which way the alligator faces.

No I did not. The OP asked who is the best candidate for salaries. What I posted is that Sanders is way less desirable than Clinton who is less desirable than anyone else. If you disagree you should look into Sanders proposed tax increases for us "1%ers." I'm already paying 50% of my salary in taxes. I don't feel like paying more.

 

[NickNaylor]

I am not sure if you forgot which way the alligator faces.

I think his assessment is accurate if we are strictly looking at salaries of high earners (physicians) and not anything else. Ultimately the president can't do much of anything to force these kinds of changes - the legislature has to do that - but it's no secret that Sanders has made his positions clear and the writing is on the wall. You may not agree with them socially or that their policies are the "best" for our society, but most Republicans will serve the interest of high earners when it comes to tax policies and advocate for social policies which do not require substantial expenditure, which affect the former.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other globally, but if we are strictly talking about allowing you to retain as much of your income as possible, Republicans > Democrats every day of the week and Sunday.

 

[Law2Doc]

...Just a quick note: Cruz is actually still getting 20%-25% of the votes in his own party. Likewise, Rubio is actually pretty far right (e.g., here, here), far more right than Romney, and he's getting about 20%-25% too. Carson is pretty far right too. And Trump most likely isn't far right at all, but a lot of his rhetoric is far right (e.g., build a wall between the US and Mexico, deport 12 million illegal immigrants), and he does appeal to a significant number of far right voters too (as well as many others).

It's more ominous than that for Cruz. The staunchest republicans are the ones who turn out for primaries. And he's coming in third with them. Saying "but he's getting 20%" is missing the point. He is getting 20% of the subselected group that needs to be about 40% in your pocket to get the nomination. Losers of primaries often get 20%. Right now his odds are more in line with a Huckabee than a Romney.

 

[bashwell]

It's more ominous than that for Cruz. The staunchest republicans are the ones who turn out for primaries. And he's coming in third with them. Saying "but he's getting 20%" is missing the point. He is getting 20% of the subselected group that needs to be about 40% in your pocket to get the nomination. Losers of primaries often get 20%. Right now his odds are more in line with a Huckabee than a Romney.

Well, except we're not talking about anyone's chances of winning the nomination or election. (I'm pretty sure Cruz won't win). The context is your previous point that the hard or far right republicans aren't on the same page as their constituents, which you say we see from the rise of Trump over Cruz. However, if it's true that the "staunchest republicans are the ones who turn out for primaries," then presumably the "staunchest republicans" are turning out not just for Cruz, but also for Trump (and Rubio et al). Hence your current point, if true, is in some tension with your previous point.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?

Please do not become a physician.

 

[DNC127]

For physicians wallets I believe Carson is the best option because he wants a 10% flat tax. Which is by far the best for physicians anyway you look at it. Even if salaries dip a little bit under Carson (which they likely won't because he his 100% against "free" healthcare), a 10% tax on physician salary will bring in a lot more useable income for physicians. However, Carson will not win so all we can hope is that Trump wins and appoints Carson to VP or surgeon general (if we are voting for the sake of income).

 

[Law2Doc]

Well, except we're not talking about anyone's chances of winning the nomination. (I'm pretty sure Cruz won't win). The context is your previous point that the hard or far right republicans aren't on the same page as their constituents, which you say we see from the rise of Trump over Cruz. However, if it's true that the "staunchest republicans are the ones who turn out for primaries," then presumably the "staunchest republicans" are turning out not just for Cruz, but for Trump, Rubio, et al too. Hence your current point, if true, is in some tension with your previous point.

40% of the staunchest republicans are voting for an outsider who may not even be a republican. And that's after the GOP losing the last two elections and having tons of time to regroup. If that isn't a pretty big signal that the party needs to change some of its positions and move away from some of the people it has historically catered to, I don't know what is. The GOP is saying our darlings are Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Bush, etc and the people showing up for the primaries are mostly saying F that -- I'd much rather have the guy the pope just said wasn't a good Christian, and who thinks Mexicans are all rapists and who suggested we should soak bullets in pigs blood when taking on our Islamic enemies. The GOP should throw out much of its ideology (and zealots like Cruz and Ryan with it) because frankly idiots saying blatantly stupid things are actually proving much more appealing than the GOP stances on most social issues.

 

[NontradCA]

Not Trump because he loves the poorly educated. And the only thing we know about his healthcare views is that he wants to get rid of ObamaCare, is in favor of universal healthcare and doesn't want people walking around the streets without coverage.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

How much could Sanders actually accomplish though, even if he's elected? (genuine question here)
Obviously he'd need a Democratic majority in Congress, which he doesn't have right now. And I would guess that many Democrats might even think his plans are extreme.

 

[jqueb29]

Please do not become a physician.

Why do you say this? I certainly care about other social/economic policies unlike OP, but it's ridiculous to say that if you're basing it off their top concern being what president will give them the highest income. I would imagine the overwhelming majority of people vote for the President they believe will maximize their income, so why should doctors be any different?

 

[bashwell]

40% of the staunchest republicans are voting for an outsider who may not even be a republican. And that's after the GOP losing the last two elections and having tons of time to regroup. If that isn't a pretty big signal that the party needs to change some of its positions and move away from some of the people it has historically catered to, I don't know what is. The GOP is saying our darlings are Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Bush, etc and the people showing up for the primaries are mostly saying F that -- I'd much rather have the guy the pope just said wasn't a good Christian, and who thinks Mexicans are all rapists and who suggested we should soak bullets in pigs blood when taking on our Islamic enemies.

I don't think what you've said here is at all logically related to what I've said. It just sounds like you're ranting about the GOP needing to change, which is something I actually agree with, but which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what's been said in context.

Originally, you were talking about how Republicans want to get rid of Obamacare, which you found funny and basically implied was a bit ironic (if not hypocritical), because Obamacare is very similar to and based in large part on Romneycare. Republicans supported Romneycare, but not Obamacare, even though they're essentially the same! I then pointed out that Romney was regarded by many Republicans as a moderate or even RINO, which obviously includes Romney's position on healthcare. Many Republicans in 2012 didn't care for Romney or Romneycare. Hence there's not necessarily any irony (or double standard or hypocrisy or similar) in these Republicans wanting to get rid of Obamacare. That was my main point.

 

[Brorthopedic]

Please do not become a physician.

Get off your high horse, kid

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't think what you've said here is at all logically related to what I've said. It just sounds like you're ranting about the GOP needing to change, which is something I actually agree with, but which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what's been said in context.

Originally, you were talking about how Republicans want to get rid of Obamacare, which you found funny and basically implied was a bit ironic (if not hypocritical), because Obamacare is very similar to and based in large part on Romneycare. Republicans supported Romneycare, but not Obamacare, even though they're essentially the same! I then pointed out that Romney was regarded by many Republicans as a moderate or even RINO, which obviously includes Romney's position on healthcare. Many Republicans in 2012 didn't care for Romney or Romneycare. Hence there's not necessarily any irony (or double standard or hypocrisy or similar) in these Republicans wanting to get rid of Obamacare. That was my main point.

There's hypocrisy insofar as the republicans backed Romney and would have by so doing backed Romney-care.

But that wasn't really what I was responding to in the prior post, it was the 20% aspect. There's a lot of weak spin going around in the GOP today. They are calling Trump a RINO. They are saying the fact that Trump only got 48% of the vote in Nevada means that most of the voters didn't vote for him, and the like. It's weak silly rhetoric and nobody should buy in. The republican constituents simply don't like their non-"RINO" choices. They didn't when Romney ran either. It's been a long time since a "loyal republican" captured the interest in the public in a presidential election.

That's on the GOP. Means the party needs to clean house, with hardliners like Cruz at the top of the list. Cut the $ off and fund guys the public actually like.

Saying Trump didn't get half the vote is only a good argument when he doesn't get twice as much as the next choice. Rubio hinting today that he might have Trump numbers and be the most electable candidate after some consolidation and once a certain opponent who is splitting his potential vote drops out is humorous because my bet is Trump would also benefit from such a consolidation. So the question is how many years of "RINOs" should the GOP get upset about before they say, "you know what-- maybe it's Cruz and Rubio etc who are the ones who should bear the labels and be viewed as the party outsiders -- we serve our constituents, not stand here and tell them they don't understand what makes a good republican."

But it will never happen and the GOP seems destined to go another 8 years with with a Democrat or RINO running the country.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Why do you say this? I certainly care about other social/economic policies unlike OP, but it's ridiculous to say that if you're basing it off their top concern being what president will give them the highest income. I would imagine the overwhelming majority of people vote for the President they believe will maximize their income, so why should doctors be any different?

Get off your high horse, kid

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

 

[Brahnold]

Trump is not a conservative, he's a nationalist and a populist. He appeals to people because he combines the most popular aspects of both parties. Prior to the Trumpening, the "silent majority" had two options: get shafted on immigration, taxes and constitutional rights by voting for the democrats, or get shafted on entitlements, trade, and ruinous foreign misadventures by voting for the republicans. Trump finally offers voters the best of both worlds: a nationalist, protectionist platform which unapologetically puts the will and interests of the majority over the interests of minorities, foreign powers, and globalists. This is why he is winning among Republicans, and this is likewise why he will win in the general election. There is something in his platform for everyone in the American core, and the core is still the vast majority of the voting public.

And yes, I have no doubt he is by far the best option for physician salaries. He is in favor of removing barriers to insurance company competition between state lines, which cannot but help reimbursement rates. He is also in favor of a top marginal income tax rate of 25% from today's 38% or whatever it is. Additionally, I've listened to a few of his Q&As and he seems very favorably disposed towards physicians and recognizes the intensity of their training and the central role they play as the enablers of the entire healthcare delivery system. And of course, he doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who is going to throw "us" under the bus for being rich greedy bastards. lol

 

[bashwell]

There's hypocrisy insofar as the republicans backed Romney and would have by so doing backed Romney-care.

The Republican "establishment," but not all Republicans let alone all conservatives.

But that wasn't really what I was responding to in the prior post, it was the 20% aspect. There's a lot of weak spin going around in the GOP today. They are calling Trump a RINO. They are saying the fact that Trump only got 48% of the vote in Nevada means that most of the voters didn't vote for him, and the like. It's weak silly rhetoric and nobody should buy in. The republican constituents simply don't like their non-"RINO" choices. They didn't when Romney ran either. It's been a long time since a "loyal republican" captured the interest in the public in a presidential election.

That's on the GOP. Means the party needs to clean house, with hardliners like Cruz at the top of the list. Cut the $ off and fund guys the public actually like.

Saying Trump didn't get half the vote is only a good argument when he doesn't get twice as much as the next choice. Rubio hinting today that he might have Trump numbers and be the most electable candidate after some consolidation and once a certain opponent who is splitting his potential vote drops out is humorous because my bet is Trump would also benefit from such a consolidation. So the question is how many years of "RINOs" should the GOP get upset about before they say, "you know what-- maybe it's Cruz and Rubio etc who are the ones who should bear the labels and be viewed as the party outsiders -- we serve our constituents, not stand here and tell them they don't understand what makes a good republican."

But it will never happen and the GOP seems destined to go another 8 years with with a Democrat or RINO running the country.

Again, I think you're shadow boxing with someone other than me, because I didn't talk about most of what you've said here.

By the way, at least from what I've seen, Trump is polling about 33%, give or take, nationally, among Republicans, whereas non-Trump is the rest i.e. 67%. Also, as I mentioned above, Trump may indeed be a RINO, but you couldn't necessarily tell that from his rhetoric which is often hardline or hard right (e.g. deport 12 million illegal immigrants, torturing terrorists).

 

[Baller MD]

Please do not become a physician.

Get over yourself. People can become a physician for whatever reason they have. As long as they're good at their job, why the hell does their reason for becoming a doc. matter?

 

[Merely]

Sanders is the worst by far, then clinton, then Trump, then cruz and the right wing crazies

 

[Brorthopedic]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

I'm not in medical school because I want to "make as much money possible" but I sure as hell wouldn't invest as much time, accumulate as much debt and adopt the lifestyle of a physician if I wasn't going to be paid well for it.

 

[Law2Doc]

...

Again, I think you're shadow boxing with someone other than me, because I didn't talk about most of what you've said here.

By the way, at least from what I've seen, Trump is polling about 33%, give or take, nationally, among Republicans, whereas non-Trump is the rest i.e. 67%. Also, as I mentioned above, Trump may indeed be a RINO, but you couldn't necessarily tell that from his rhetoric which is often hardline or hard right (e.g. deport 12 million illegal immigrants, torturing terrorists).

Um, your 67% comment tells me I'm not shadow boxing with the wrong person-- that's precisely the kind of wrong thinking Rubio and Cruz are spinning today, and what I am addressing. Historically people who have handily won the primaries Trump has won by the margins he has put up are assured the nomination unless they say anything stupid (which for obvious reasons is a caveat that doesn't even apply here).

And I wouldn't buy into the hard right Trump rhetoric too much -- just last week he came down pretty hard as pro-choice. He's not a slave to the republicans slate of issues. And as hard as he speaks against immigrants, he married one. And the list of charitable issues he has supported through Celebrity Apprentice include an awful lot of very liberal organizations. The guy is actually much more centrist than Cruz and his cronies are going to be able to stomach.

 

[Roxas]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

Spoken like someone who has never had to sacrifice anything to the deities of medical education.

When (if) you make it through the entirety of your training and want to work for pennies and a warm gooey feeling inside, be my guest. You have no right to condemn someone for their motivations as long as they show up and do their job well.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Spoken like someone who has never had to sacrifice anything to the deities of medical education.

When (if) you make it through the entirety of your training and want to work for pennies and a warm gooey feeling inside, be my guest. You have no right to condemn someone for their motivations as long as they show up and do their job well.

You are great at personal insults! Now let's try something else - answer the question I asked. If you said that to a person who is responsible for deciding who gets to even try to become a doctor, what do you think the result would be?

 

[jqueb29]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

The desire to make as much money as possible has absolutely zero negative effect on the ability to provide quality care. They are not mutually exclusive things. If anything, it would have a positive effect. For example, Medicare reimbursement rates are higher if there is better quality of care in terms of decreased hospital readmission rates, and you better believe hospital administrators notice which doctors are performing notably good or bad in that regard. Plus, there's the whole pretty obvious general concept that, if you want to make a lot of money in any industry, it's probably a good idea to provide a high quality product. If I own a steakhouse, I'm going to pay a premium for the chef who makes a great steak, and I'm not hiring the guy who is known to frequently burn the meat to a crisp.

But go ahead and be that naive pre-med who's going to spend all their time giving the underserved health care in return for live chickens. Those of us in the real world with families to support will continue to strive towards making as much money as we can, and will do so by providing the best quality of care we are capable of.

 

[deleted731525]

For physicians wallets I believe Carson is the best option because he wants a 10% flat tax. Which is by far the best for physicians anyway you look at it. Even if salaries dip a little bit under Carson (which they likely won't because he his 100% against "free" healthcare), a 10% tax on physician salary will bring in a lot more useable income for physicians. However, Carson will not win so all we can hope is that Trump wins and appoints Carson to VP or surgeon general (if we are voting for the sake of income).

The thing is you have to keep in mind the long term game. Obamacare getting abolished might be good for pay in the short term(or it might not but lets assume it is), but a big change like that brings instability and makes the likelihood of true single payer more likely in the long term if a Dem like Warren gets in next time around. The best bet in the long term imo purely for physician salaries will be the candidate that maintains the status quo and keeps the system bearable for all involved, as the longer Obamacare survives the lower the chances of it getting abolished. And if it gets abolished we very well(and I think it would be more likely than not) may end up with something more liberal in the long term.

All that being said this is a relatively minor issue compared to some of the other issues at play this election cycle.

 

[kenjixshadow]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

To answer your question, an insightful applicant should not directly mention money is the reason. Nevertheless, I'd remind you that a stable and moderately high income is one of the incentives that attracts ppl to this field. I wouldn't be a doctor for $50/hr and do something else. Medical students, residents, fellows, and attendings are highly competent, talented, and ambitious people. Without the high salaries, many if not most would go to different professions. If I could get the same compensation for other jobs without incurring years of school, high amount of stress, school debts, liability, and tough schedules, why would I be a doctor?

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

I took one of those online quizzes for which presidential candidate would be good for me to vote for. I highlighted issues like income tax and my vote came out to be for Cruz.

Then again, all politicians are a bunch of liars.

 

[deleted731525]

Trump is not a conservative, he's a nationalist and a populist. He appeals to people because he combines the most popular aspects of both parties. Prior to the Trumpening, the "silent majority" had two options: get shafted on immigration, taxes and constitutional rights by voting for the democrats, or get shafted on entitlements, trade, and ruinous foreign misadventures by voting for the republicans. Trump finally offers voters the best of both worlds: a nationalist, protectionist platform which unapologetically puts the will and interests of the majority over the interests of minorities, foreign powers, and globalists. This is why he is winning among Republicans, and this is likewise why he will win in the general election. There is something in his platform for everyone in the American core, and the core is still the vast majority of the voting public.

And yes, I have no doubt he is by far the best option for physician salaries. He is in favor of removing barriers to insurance company competition between state lines, which cannot but help reimbursement rates. He is also in favor of a top marginal income tax rate of 25% from today's 38% or whatever it is. Additionally, I've listened to a few of his Q&As and he seems very favorably disposed towards physicians and recognizes the intensity of their training and the central role they play as the enablers of the entire healthcare delivery system. And of course, he doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who is going to throw "us" under the bus for being rich greedy bastards. lol

There is only one thing that Trump truly believes, and that is that Trump should be president.

 

[Roxas]

You are great at personal insults! Now let's try something else - answer the question I asked. If you said that to a person who is responsible for deciding who gets to even try to become a doctor, what do you think the result would be?

Insults? No. Everything in my post is fact. You are indeed speaking like someone who doesn't know what someone like me is sacrificing.

As for your question (which wasn't initially directed at me, but I'll bite): you're right, giving that exact answer as you so belligerently put it would be difficult to impress an adcom or a PD. That's why no one would say that. You were the one that created such an answer. However, I don't think it is unethical to keep financial implications of a certain position in mind when choosing a profession or a specialty. In fact you'd be stupid not to.

I feel like I'm about to shatter your world by telling you that it is possible to love a branch of science, or perhaps a patient population and still expect to be compensated fairly for your work.

 

[bashwell]

Um, your 67% comment tells me I'm not shadow boxing with the wrong person-- that's precisely the kind of wrong thinking Rubio and Cruz are spinning today, and what I am addressing. Historically people who have handily won the primaries Trump has won by the margins he has put up are assured the nomination unless they say anything stupid (which for obvious reasons is a caveat that doesn't even apply here).

And I wouldn't buy into the hard right Trump rhetoric too much -- just last week he came down pretty hard as pro-choice. He's not a slave to the republicans slate of issues. And as hard as he speaks against immigrants, he married one. And the list of charitable issues he has supported through Celebrity Apprentice include an awful lot of very liberal organizations. The guy is actually much more centrist than Cruz and his cronies are going to be able to stomach.

You're shadow boxing with the wrong person inasmuch as most of what you've said has gone far afield from what we've originally been talking about. For example, I already mentioned above that who's going to win the nomination or election is irrelevant to my original point, yet you seem to keep framing your replies with this in mind. I could agree wholeheartedly with you, and indeed as I've said I largely do agree with you, but it's still off topic. You're just going off on rabbit trails from my perspective, even though I agree with your rabbit trails, as it were.

I only mentioned the part about 67% as an aside ("By the way...") to entertain what you've said, but it was hardly integral to anything I hold or believe. Besides, from another person's perspective, you're "spinning" the facts and figures as well. It's up for debate anyway, but ultimately time will tell.

The thing about Trump is he's really an opportunist. A confidence man to some degree as well. Among other things. He'll say and do almost anything to get what he wants which in this case is the presidency. I personally don't buy into his hardline rhetoric, but many do, and that's the point. It's about the perception, not the reality.

 

[Roxas]

The desire to make as much money as possible has absolutely zero negative effect on the ability to provide quality care. They are not mutually exclusive things. If anything, it would have a positive effect. For example, Medicare reimbursement rates are higher if there is better quality of care in terms of decreased hospital readmission rates, and you better believe hospital administrators notice which doctors are performing notably good or bad in that regard. Plus, there's the whole pretty obvious general concept that, if you want to make a lot of money in any industry, it's probably a good idea to provide a high quality product. If I own a steakhouse, I'm going to pay a premium for the chef who makes a great steak, and I'm not hiring the guy who is known to frequently burn the meat to a crisp.

But go ahead and be that naive pre-med who's going to spend all their time giving the underserved health care in return for live chickens. Those of us in the real world with families to support will continue to strive towards making as much money as we can, and will do so by providing the best quality of care we are capable of.

You said it even better than I could.

 

[Law2Doc]

There is only one thing that Trump truly believes, and that is that Trump should be president.

And I am not even sure that is true. I am still waiting for the "Trading Places" moment at the end of his campaign where he collects his $1 bet.

 

[TBV]

Please do not become a physician.

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

How's that freshman humanities class working out for you? In the real world you butter up your interviewer and give the answers they want to hear to get in. Like others have said before, if I do a great job and in the meantime get personal satisfaction and try to maximize my earnings, who are you to down me on that?

 

[Brahnold]

You guys can scoff all you want, but Trump is nearly 70, a billionaire, and pushing exhausting 18 hour days with 2 to 4 rallies a day, every day. The dude means business, and he's been consistent on his major policy stances since the darn 80's. No septuagenarian is gonna go through all that effort unless he's determined to shake stuff up, big time. It's going to be YUUUUGE!

 

[Brorthopedic]

I'm just going to leave this here...

 

[67552931811]

The desire to make as much money as possible has absolutely zero negative effect on the ability to provide quality care. They are not mutually exclusive things. If anything, it would have a positive effect. For example, Medicare reimbursement rates are higher if there is better quality of care in terms of decreased hospital readmission rates, and you better believe hospital administrators notice which doctors are performing notably good or bad in that regard. Plus, there's the whole pretty obvious general concept that, if you want to make a lot of money in any industry, it's probably a good idea to provide a high quality product. If I own a steakhouse, I'm going to pay a premium for the chef who makes a great steak, and I'm not hiring the guy who is known to frequently burn the meat to a crisp.

But go ahead and be that naive pre-med who's going to spend all their time giving the underserved health care in return for live chickens. Those of us in the real world with families to support will continue to strive towards making as much money as we can, and will do so by providing the best quality of care we are capable of.

Sticky this/ end thread.

 

[DoctwoB]

The desire to make as much money as possible has absolutely zero negative effect on the ability to provide quality care. They are not mutually exclusive things. If anything, it would have a positive effect. For example, Medicare reimbursement rates are higher if there is better quality of care in terms of decreased hospital readmission rates, and you better believe hospital administrators notice which doctors are performing notably good or bad in that regard. Plus, there's the whole pretty obvious general concept that, if you want to make a lot of money in any industry, it's probably a good idea to provide a high quality product. If I own a steakhouse, I'm going to pay a premium for the chef who makes a great steak, and I'm not hiring the guy who is known to frequently burn the meat to a crisp.

But go ahead and be that naive pre-med who's going to spend all their time giving the underserved health care in return for live chickens. Those of us in the real world with families to support will continue to strive towards making as much money as we can, and will do so by providing the best quality of care we are capable of.

Actually, it's not just naïve pre-meds who fear that the profit motive does interfere with giving quality care. Every doctor knows other physicians who practice in a fashion more conducive towards lining their pockets then patient care. I know surgeons that perform near-sham multiple-staged procedures when one good procedure would suffice for extra $$$ (with extra risk for the patient). I know medical sub specialists who run a consulting service of nearly 100 patients (guess how much individual care they get). I know doctors who perform outmoded or unindicated treatments due to better reimbursement or to monetize capital expenses.

These people infuriate me, because most doctors I know strive to provide excellent care to their patients while also caring about their bottom line (though often making monetary sacrifices for patient care). As you point out, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but it's a matter of making profit incentives align with patient care incentives. But guess what?? The government is trying to impose more "pay-for-quality," systems, and it sucks. It turns out it is really da** hard to measure quality and tie payments to it, because so much of how our patients do depends more on the patient then on us. So in the meantime, I will continue to worry about physicians obsessed first and foremost with money, as they will end up making conditions and regulations much more onerous for the rest of us who want to provide great care while earning a good living.

 

[ThePenguin21]

Sticky this/ end thread.