can I pay it back with Hillary or O in there?

[montessori2md]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Here's what I want to know...

If "everyone" has insurance, who's going to fill up the ER at 3 AM with crying kids or random inexplicable pain? Won't they just wait till daylight and go to the nearest ped/fam med practice?

Will the ER as we know it be transformed into a place reserved for actual life-threatening emergencies? Could that happen?

 

[BigRedder]

Here's what I want to know...

If "everyone" has insurance, who's going to fill up the ER at 3 AM with crying kids or random inexplicable pain? Won't they just wait till daylight and go to the nearest ped/fam med practice?

Will the ER as we know it be transformed into a place reserved for actual life-threatening emergencies? Could that happen?

Haha, they'll still be there, there will just be fewer colds and sore throats. Neuroticism isn't reserved for the indigent...

 

[Bacchus]

Here's what I want to know...

If "everyone" has insurance, who's going to fill up the ER at 3 AM with crying kids or random inexplicable pain? Won't they just wait till daylight and go to the nearest ped/fam med practice?

Will the ER as we know it be transformed into a place reserved for actual life-threatening emergencies? Could that happen?

If only. Usually there is a waiting period unless it is extremely serious. Doctors in my area at home (not Philadelphia) usually won't accept patients for atleast a month because of demand.

 

[BigRedder]

If only. Usually there is a waiting period unless it is extremely serious. Doctors in my area at home (not Philadelphia) usually won't accept patients for atleast a month because of demand.

That's why there need to be walk-in clinics for non-emergencies. They exist, and I used them when I was younger. When you have a scratchy throat you suspect might be strep, or you know you have a sinus infection and you want some antibiotics, or you just sprained your ankle and want someone to look at it, you don't need the ER. However, you do need to take care of it quickly.

 

[ufgrad00]

Malpractice insurance costs money.
Gas is nowhere near that cheap.
Paying back your loans over a 30-year period means a lot of money goes towards interest.
Food definitely isn't that cheap.

First off, that calculation of expenses is not meant for someone say living in major metropolitan areas like South FL or NYC. I mean 400 a month on car payments and insurance? All that will get you is a 94 nissan with 100K miles. As far as mortgage and home insurance, all those estimates are regional and on the really low side.

Secondly, that estimate is only for working at a hospital, but what about a private practice. I mean, you have to pay overhead and salaries of your workers. And the larger the practice, the more money is needed to run it. If you take specialties like rad onc and oncology, a very sizeable portion of patient service is done in lare private practices, which require a lot of chemo nurses, physicists, other health workers and social workers, and other professionals like IT and legal. A good portion these people would go out of work if reimbursements from medicare and insurance get any lower. I know this because it was discussed with me by my employer (I work for an oncology practice) that if the medicare cuts were enacted this january, I would be let go from my job and ironically lose my health insurance a few months later. However the cuts were postponed until July and I will be getting ready for med school.

Thirdly, I thought this thread could use some Adrianna Lima.

 

[Proteinpowda]

It would be interesting if more libertarians were on here..... or a few more people read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead.


And it's pretty bad for those that are uninsured. Yet when people don't have insurance the docs I have worked with have bent over backwards for them; free drug samples and they'll hardly charge them for a visit.
But since they do this they need to make up for it somehow and in turn they have to bill out a higher amount to the insurance companies who then bill out higher premiums.

Just tell me...we're talking about being fair to the patients...yet what is fair to us as doctors? We work harder than almost anyone else (probably the hardest) to do what we do. We study our asses off in our undergrad years and then again for the MCAT and as a reward we get to hardly sleep for th next nine years or so during medical school and residency (where we get paid like 9 an hour).
And yet people are willing to pay mechanics and everyone else more?
My stepmother who's a nurse at a hospital loves this example:
You call a mechanic in the middle of the night if your heat breaks; they're going to charge you at least $100 to walk in the door. You don't complain; you thank them for getting up in the middle of the night.
A doctor gets called to the ER for his patient: he'll get $60. And that's if he can get the insurance company to pay him.
If medical schools want to attract the best and the brightest their needs to be incentive.

And we can all go on and on about how we love to help people...b/c adcoms love to hear that. And I agree; it's hugely rewarding. But tell me...why should someone that worked so hard not get paid properly for everything they put into it? I understand rewards come in forms other than monetary..... but we've all seen how well socialism works.

Let me copy and paste this:

In 2005, health care spending in the United States reached $2 trillion, and was projected to reach $2.9 trillion in 2009 (2). Health care spending is projected to reach $4 trillion by 2015 (2).

Now lets say there are 850,000 docs in the country...if each of them were salaried at 300k a year this would cost:
255,000,000,000 - 255 billion.
Throw in a bit more for malpractice.
Say it's now 400 billion with malpractice.
And these numbers might be exaggerated b/c most doctors don't make this much and many don't practice full time. Or they could be too low....
How large of a chunk is that of the total cost? Doctors salaries aren't the issue.....

 

[Crazy4F1]

i'm in a class right now that covers some of these questions. the basic gist i've gotten from it is that as more and more subsidized or cheaper plans are offered to people so that the uninsured can gain coverage, the HMOs will want to pay the doctors less so that they still maintain a healthy profit. all the financial risk in these scenarios transfers to the physician. is it any wonder we have a shortage of primary care physicians? and, how many private offices do you think will refuse to accept patients covered under an uber-cheap, uber-subsidized plan that barely pays the doctors enough to cover their operating costs?

wishful thinking, but it would be nice somewhere in all of this healthcare restructuring talk if any of the politicians would look out for the doctors too. just a little bit. the above post is pretty spot on. people will pay 50-60 for a manicure/pedicure without batting an eye, but a $15 copay??? omg! something about this isnt right. i'm all for patient involvement in their health care, making healthcare affordable and accessible, but there has to be a balance somewhere.

 

[ufgrad00]

I know, everybody in congress seems to want to blame physicians salaries. Even the insurance companies want to claim that phsicians are paid to much. But I can see why the insurance companies say this when they pay their CEO's and other executives salaries in the 10 - 100 million dollar range.

United Health CEO earned $124.8 million in 2005
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/02/14/united-health-ceo-earned-1248-million-in-2005/

If anything is too high, it is not physician salaries.

 

[NoUse4aName1286]

Some logic, finally!

 

[UGAmkw]

For all you liberal pre-meds out there, I'm interested in what you think about Socialized Medicine? I'm sure everything will be perfect if the U.S. ever starts it. Because it has worked SOOO well in other countries. You think Dermatology and Plastics are competitive now? No one wants to go to school for 12 years and not make good money, its just not smart. Anyway Socialized Medicine= WAY less doctors= Screwed

 

[Bacchus]

For all you liberal pre-meds out there, I'm interested in what you think about Socialized Medicine? I'm sure everything will be perfect if the U.S. ever starts it. Because it has worked SOOO well in other countries. You think Dermatology and Plastics are competitive now? No one wants to go to school for 12 years and not make good money, its just not smart. Anyway Socialized Medicine= WAY less doctors= Screwed

None of the presidential candidates are proposing socialized medicine. All plans keep privatized insurance intact. Insurance now is very unregulated. More regulations are needed and that is what the candidates are proposing. They are also trying to lower the cost of health insurance. The state of healthcare is already horrible. Socializing it would indeed make it much worse, however I don't see the validity in your argument. We already have a physician shortage.

 

[Crazy4F1]

its the revenge of the republicans


seriously though, i'm going to school to be a doctor, not a martyr. i dont need to be a multimillionaire, but every single one of us is not going to remain naive and bubbling with optimism about the prospects of a job that requires us to give everything and holds out on what we deserve in return when we have mortgages and kids to put through college.

 

[Crazy4F1]

None of the presidential candidates are proposing socialized medicine. All plans keep privatized insurance intact. Insurance now is very unregulated. More regulations are needed and that is what the candidates are proposing. They are also trying to lower the cost of health insurance. The state of healthcare is already horrible. Socializing it would indeed make it much worse, however I don't see the validity in your argument. We already have a physician shortage.

the point is that in order to make health insurance more affordable and in order to conserve their profit margins, the financial risk is transferred to doctors, who will be compensated less. this will negatively impact the already growing physician shortage, especially in primary care. part of the reason we even have a shortage there to begin with is in an effort to make more money, people are attracted to the more high profile specialties, where their procedures are still fee-for-service more often, rather than just being covered under the capitation payments from the HMOs, which hardly, if ever, approach 100% of the cost of the procedure to the physician and his practice.

 

[Bacchus]

I dont think that is entirely true. A lot of money in healthcare is used for the equivalent of TP. A major overhaul has to occur.

 

[katieo]

I'm always a little terrified by the number of republicans on this board... I hope I can find some liberal people in med school!

I feel you.

Woot woot, another "lets all trash socialism! Hillary is EVIL" thread.

 

[ufgrad00]

I feel you.

Woot woot, another "lets all trash socialism! Hillary is EVIL" thread.

I love the irony of the liberal mentality here. "We are open and respect diversity, but won't tolerate anything that is not liberal."

You may think republicans just want to trash socialism. But my family in Cuba, a socialist country, would be thrown in jail and "trashed themselves" if they "trashed socialism". Too bad, people living in socialist countries do not have the freedom we take for granted in questioning authority and political motivations, as well as "trashing socialism".

 

[Vihsadas]

I love the irony of the liberal mentality here. "We are open and respect diversity, but won't tolerate anything that is not liberal."

You may think republicans just want to trash socialism. But my family in Cuba, a socialist country, would be thrown in jail and "thrashed themselves" if they "trashed socialism". To bad people living in socialist countries do not have the freedom we take for granted in questioning authority and political motivations, as well as "trashing socialism".

Wait, what? Cuba is a totalitarianism that happens to have socialistic tendencies. Canada is more along the lines of a socialism (but not yet one by any stretch.)

 

[berkeleyvala]

I'm always a little terrified by the number of republicans on this board... I hope I can find some liberal people in med school!

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. 👍

 

[ufgrad00]

Wait, what? Cuba is a totalitarianism that happens to have socialistic tendencies. Canada is more along the lines of a socialism (but not yet one by any stretch.)

**** by any name still stinks.

I have never been one for labels, but my point is that in some countries and Cuba you go to jail for publicly criticizing socialism. Heck, even owning literature like, "The Wealth of Nations" or "Animal Farm" are "anti-revolutionary" crimes that get you into jail in Cuba. We should be grateful that we could "trash" any philosophy without repercussions from the state.

Also, talking about banned literature and media in Cuba, its old news, but even Sicko has been banned in Cuba because it shows care that is not available to Cuban citizens, and has been deemed subversive.

Do a search and you will see more about it.

 

[Vihsadas]

**** by any name still stinks.

I have never been one for labels, but my point is that in some countries and Cuba you go to jail for publicly criticizing socialism. Heck, even owning literature like, "The Wealth of Nations" or "Animal Farm" are "anti-revolutionary" crimes that get you into jail in Cuba. We should be grateful that we could "trash" any philosophy without repercussions from the state.

Also, talking about banned literature and media in Cuba, its old news, but even Sicko has been banned in Cuba because it shows care that is not available to Cuban citizens, and has been deemed subversive.

Do a search and you will see more about it.

I'm not denying these things happen in Cuba. In fact, I never implied otherwise. My point was that your comment insinuated that a socialism would be similar to the situation in Cuba. I countered by stating that a totalitarianism and socialism do not go hand in hand. The plight in Cuba, while very regrettable, is not relevant to the point you countered. It doesn't follow the debate.

 

[ufgrad00]

I'm not denying these things happen in Cuba. In fact, I never implied otherwise. My point was that your comment insinuated that a socialism would be similar to the situation in Cuba. I countered by stating that a totalitarianism and socialism do not go hand in hand. The plight in Cuba, while very regrettable, is not relevant to the point you countered. It doesn't follow the debate.

I know what you meant and that you never were being defensive. You are right it isn't relevent and I'll stop diverting the thread.

 

[Gut Shot]

Maybe people would be more in favor of tort reform if they realized how much of their "astronomical" medical bill went to paying for their doctor's malpractice insurance.

Tort reform is nice, but it's a band aid. In states where such reforms have been enacted (such as Texas), litigation drops transiently, then it creeps back up until the next tort adjustment.

To better deal with the problem will require more a more comprehensive strategy. Some states are already quite good at dissuading meritless claims and limiting those already rare jackpot jury awards, others need to catch up. Here's an interesting factoid: most of the companies that provide malpractice insurance to physicians are not in business to provide that insurance. They are in business to make money through investment - the insurance angle is just a cash cow to support other activities. State laws restrict how much revenue these companies can invest, but I'd offer that most need to be further clamped down upon. The biggest hit you'll ever take on your malpractice premiums is when the stock market tanks and your insurance provider needs to cover its losses.

Finally, we'd be better off if we made fewer mistakes. That's hearsay, I know, but it's true. Over a span of two decades, anesthesiology went from being a high malpractice specialty to a low malpractice specialty. Why? Because they systematically analyzed their work processes, identified the mistake-prone areas, and took steps to correct the problems. It's not as easy as slapping a cap on pain and suffering, but it worked.

Along those lines, it's appalling how many hospitals still use paper charts, something that hardly could have been designed better for generating errors. But that's another thread for another time.

 

[Gut Shot]

Too bad, people living in socialist countries do not have the freedom we take for granted in questioning authority and political motivations, as well as "trashing socialism".

Really? I didn't realize most of western Europe was so anti-freedom.

 

[Gut Shot]

It would be interesting if more libertarians were on here..... or a few more people read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead.

Statements like this always remind me of the back cover of America - A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction:

"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an ******* for at least a month afterward."
- Ayn Rand

 

[mules05]

If the US ends up with a system where many people are covered by government insurance plans that don't pay out enough for my salary to be livable, I'll just go into private practice and take only rich patients who are willing to pay out of pocket for higher quality care and shorter waiting times. People do it all the time. Or I'll just refuse to see anyone with government-sponsored insurance- kind of like the outpatient offices associated with my university hospital now refuse several different medicaid insurance carriers, leaving those with medicaid worse off than they were before they had insurance.

Call me what you want, but I haven't been working my butt off for the past 20+ years of school so I can make next to nothing.

 

[NoUse4aName1286]

If the US ends up with a system where many people are covered by government insurance plans that don't pay out enough for my salary to be livable, I'll just go into private practice and take only rich patients who are willing to pay out of pocket for higher quality care and shorter waiting times. People do it all the time. Or I'll just refuse to see anyone with government-sponsored insurance- kind of like the outpatient offices associated with my university hospital now refuse several different medicaid insurance carriers, leaving those with medicaid worse off than they were before they had insurance.

Call me what you want, but I haven't been working my butt off for the past 20+ years of school so I can make next to nothing.

I'll call you a realist.

If anyone wants to take the time and look around a bit, you will find the UK is having a physician shortage in the NIH [Government Heath Care] because doctors choose to do private practice only, or only do part time NIH and majority of their time in private practice. AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE LOANS WE HAVE!! Don't be so quick to criticize what we have. Yes, something needs to be done about the uninsured. 45/300 million is quite a few [15%]. I've gone without health insurance, it sucks. A national plan that went along the lines of say, Healthy NY, would have my support.

 

[katieo]

I love the irony of the liberal mentality here. "We are open and respect diversity, but won't tolerate anything that is not liberal."

I wasn't being intolerant, I was just saying that this topic has been covered numerous times on this board. It's never a civilized, intelligent argument, it just turns into a flame war, every time.

 

[Old Grunt]

So I am wondering if Hillary or O get elected and put forth their healthcare ideas what will that mean for doctors? I know that they have different ideas, but just wondering where all of us might be headed? How will the amount earned by doctors change? Mostly I am scared of not being able to pay back all of my loans if I will be making less than 120K. (before I get s*** on here I am not wanting to go into medicine for the money, just need to pay back my loans (not in med school yet but so far all private loans) without living in a cardboard box so to speak)

These notions that physicians are going to be put into the poorhouse if candidate X or Y wins are absurd. I don't know if you guys have taken any economics or finance classes but dig it:

As a physician you are highly skilled labor. Unlike attorneys, you are highly skiled labor in a field that has a high demand and low supply. In a capitalist system, you will always be compensated for your value.

 

[Crazy4F1]

If the US ends up with a system where many people are covered by government insurance plans that don't pay out enough for my salary to be livable, I'll just go into private practice and take only rich patients who are willing to pay out of pocket for higher quality care and shorter waiting times. People do it all the time. Or I'll just refuse to see anyone with government-sponsored insurance- kind of like the outpatient offices associated with my university hospital now refuse several different medicaid insurance carriers, leaving those with medicaid worse off than they were before they had insurance.

Call me what you want, but I haven't been working my butt off for the past 20+ years of school so I can make next to nothing.

and that is exactly why our country will continue to have a shortage of physicians, especially in the poorest places that need them most. you're exactly right.

 

[PrecordialThump]

If the US ends up with a system where many people are covered by government insurance plans..., I'll just go into private practice and take only..patients who are willing to pay out of pocket for higher quality care and shorter waiting times. Or I'll just refuse to see anyone with government-sponsored insurance.

Hi,
To the best of my knowledge, The UK requires about 40 hours of service/week to the govt. medical system before any private practice work is allowed. So, no, you probably won't only be taking private insurance.

These notions that physicians are going to be put into the poorhouse if candidate X or Y wins are absurd. I don't know if you guys have taken any economics or finance classes but dig it: As a physician you are highly skilled labor. In a capitalist system, you will always be compensated for your value.

Dig it: If the government redistributes the wealth to pay for healthcare, it won't be a capitalist system.

 

[Vihsadas]

I'll call you a realist.

If anyone wants to take the time and look around a bit, you will find the UK is having a physician shortage in the NIH [Government Heath Care] because doctors choose to do private practice only, or only do part time NIH and majority of their time in private practice. AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE LOANS WE HAVE!! Don't be so quick to criticize what we have. Yes, something needs to be done about the uninsured. 45/300 million is quite a few [15%]. I've gone without health insurance, it sucks. A national plan that went along the lines of say, Healthy NY, would have my support.

In my opinion, the heart of the problem lies with what we've allowed the insurance companies to become, regulation of the insurance companies or codification of guidelines for coverage/payment would help. There's a reason that for the same procedure with the same doctors, same equipement, and same medication, it's almost three times more expensive in the US than Canada. I'm not saying we adopt canada's system. I'm just pointing out that the inefficiency in the system, and more importantly the oligopoly of the insurance companies is what is destroying healthcare. You don't have to abolish the insurance companies to a one-payer system...but there should be some check or balance, some regulation like for any monopoly.

 

[cbrons]

that will mean that all the doctors will get f#$%ed, no question about it. But I guess it doesn't matter, because Obama stands for CHANGE, exactly what kind of change, no one knows, but it doesn't matter since he is good looking and a good speaker.

If any one of them gets into the White House, expect the medical profession to turn into a giant DMV 😱

well said

 

[elderjack21]

In my opinion, the heart of the problem lies with what we've allowed the insurance companies to become, regulation of the insurance companies or codification of guidelines for coverage/payment would help. There's a reason that for the same procedure with the same doctors, same equipement, and same medication, it's almost three times more expensive in the US than Canada. I'm not saying we adopt canada's system. I'm just pointing out that the inefficiency in the system, and more importantly the oligopoly of the insurance companies is what is destroying healthcare. You don't have to abolish the insurance companies to a one-payer system...but there should be some check or balance, some regulation like for any monopoly.

Insurance companies blow. No doubt about it, I won't even go down that road.

I work in Canada at a hospital and while the system isn't perfect, it isn't horrible either. Doctors still make good money. If they want to make more, they just work more and are paid more by the government per procedure/visit etc if they are in private practice. The salary positions here for specialties aren't so bad either. Of course, the tax rate is higher than in the states for those making over 150k.

What other first world countries besides the US are not socialized in terms of medicine?

 

[Gut Shot]

If any one of them gets into the White House, expect the medical profession to turn into a giant DMV 😱

I'm curious what parts of their respective health care proposals lead you to this conclusion.

 

[BigRedder]

I'm curious what parts of their respective health care proposals lead you to this conclusion.

The Republican propaganda part.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Clinton's and Obama's plans aren't socialized medicine. Since the free market will still be heavily involved under these proposals, I doubt that physician income will be greatly changed. If anything, Clinton's plan is great for physicians on an economic sense, because everyone will be covered by insurance which means that compensation will be guaranteed (at least theoretically) from every patient's insurance coverage.

The government will probably go into extreme debt to get coverage to most of the population, especially under Clinton's plan which is 2x the cost of Obama's plan. Clinton's plan doesn't give a good explanation about how the costs of healthcare will be controlled except the implementation of electronic medical records, something that has associated costs itself along with taking years to take effect.

The Republican plans (now that Romney is gone) will not get many of the uninsured, who are a burden and essentially a cost-raising population for the health care for the rest of us, insured.

Of major interest, is that Medicare has hardly been mentioned. Medicare WILL go bankrupt in the not too distant future and will present a major burden to the American workforce. With entitlements for baby boomers such as Medicare and Social Security becoming used by a larger portion of our population, taxes will have to go up. I really feel that physician's future incomes will be more in jeopardy due to higher taxes rather than by income changes caused by plans that either socialize or make health care coverage universal.

 

[Phoenix.]

Moved to the Topics in Healthcare Forum as this is not specifically a Pre-Allopathic issue.

 

[Nasrudin]

The OP's question could well be asked entirely in reverse. If we continue to allow the current administration's class warfare against an increasingly vulnerable population to continue unabated will there be any way of sustaining at all all the current number of people who are insured or who are presumably insured. We don't even have to mention the thoroughly unsocialist--hideous word, I know--system we currently have--medicare--for keeping the bubble gum and duck taped leaks from blowing up in our faces--god save the queen if it should--not to mention the witch hunters who imagine that the Free Market religion is the only thing that separates them from certain oblivion.

Physician's are not loosing income in a vacuum as if health care policy and structure are the only factors. They like everyone--funny how physicians seem to think they alone are being crucified...maybe not, self-interest can at least be counted on--are loosing real earnings. If they really were in the Free Market of their dreams then they would all be clamoring to put the new nose or boobs on the handful of people who could afford their services.

The depression was the result of wealthy fools who in their greed forgot to consider that hmmm....if know one can afford this junk who will we sell it to. The same game is afoot as we speak.

As someone mentions CEO's are taking off with the loot in their helicopter's as the ship is threatening to go down, and all we can do yell at our TV screens about the hideous nature of socialism. We really are screwed.

 

[AwesomO]

Of major interest, is that Medicare has hardly been mentioned. Medicare WILL go bankrupt in the not too distant future and will present a major burden to the American workforce. With entitlements for baby boomers such as Medicare and Social Security becoming used by a larger portion of our population, taxes will have to go up. I really feel that physician's future incomes will be more in jeopardy due to higher taxes rather than by income changes caused by plans that either socialize or make health care coverage universal.

Very true but remember this was originally in the premed forum and talk about medicare doesn't make for as good personal statement fodder as does socialized medicine.
A couple other points to make about medicare, what QuantumMechanic said is true, there will be an implosion in the not too distant future. While I'm sure many of you are content to let physicians eat the tax damages, it goes far beyond that. Medicare funds (hopefully continues to do so) your residency training. We're already starting to see the affects of this. Thanks to the 10% medicare cuts and other cutbacks many residency programs are now underfunded. When Medicare implodes whats going to happen to residency training?

 

[asuhdds]

I fear the physician who quotes Ayn Rand. While the concept of hard work and self-reliance is commendable, Randian policies are completely centered around profits. If then, how do you reconcile the conflict between the mission of healthcare and the fact that, "In a paper published yesterday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are higher than those of fat people or smokers" (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.story05feb05,0,984246.story).

"Why, we should promote unhealthy habits because they'll die faster and ultimately cost the system less = PROFIT! Also, poor people, regardless of the circumstance, can just pull themselves up by the boot straps and become captains of industry. Anyone who can't afford coverage, CHOSE to be lazy crackheads and didn't pursue good jobs that have health insurance; clearly they deserve to die. Nevermind that there are low-wage impossible-to-afford health-insurance jobs (contributing to the 40 million uninsured) in this country that NEED to be filled. "

While you're at it, explain why we should get rid of public education, public policeman, public firefighters, and a public national defense; clearly these are anti-Objectivist "socialist" concepts, and inherently evil 🙄.

I'm now going to copy-pasta tidbits from my other similar post:
"In the United States, government spending on healthcare per capita exceeds any in the world, and we don't even have UHC. On top of that, individual costs (out of pocket, not including gov. spending) per capita run to about $3371 per capita per year, according to the WHO. Really now, even a bureaucratic system with inefficiencies is far superior to the mess we have. We're ranked 72nd in overall health (again according to the WHO), and ranked 41st in life expectancy. Yet we pay per capita more than 2x as much as the 'most costly' UHC system, in France."

Now for a quick bullet point of additional notes:
- If you can't stand the idea of paying for someone else's health-insurance, guess what, you already do.
- Preventative care is orders of magnitude cheaper than treating from the emergency room. As doctors you MUST believe in this. The biggest drain on government spending are the multitudes of people (again, 40 million uninsured, from a population of 300 million) that flood emergency rooms for primary care. The hospital has to take these people in, incurring exorbitant fees but their corporate profit is subsequently recouped by government subsidies. It's a stagnant system with no incentive to end this practice and it's slowly bankrupting Medicaid.
- Because of the financial concept of "economies of scale", the lack of a profit incentive, and the bargaining position of a monopoly (i.e., UHC) socialized medicine is inherently cheaper.

Now for the bad news: Yes, it is likely that physician salaries will decrease. Canadian doctors are paid roughly 30% less than their US counterparts, however Canada is suffering no shortage of doctors. Anyways, physician salaries will remain among the highest paid, and other forms of incentives can be employed to encourage growth in the career, such as subsidized education. Really though, if you're a prospective physician, it's not about the money, right?

Edit: Grammar and spelling.

 

[AwesomO]

Now for the bad news: Yes, it is likely that physician salaries will decrease.

I don't think thats exactly true. Reimbursements have been declining for a while but physicians have countered this by increasing their patient volume. Now a days it's not uncommon for a cardiologist to employ a couple PAs who round on all his patients and he just runs by and signs off on the charts with minimal patient contact. It's not unusual for the patient to think the PA is the physician as they never see the actual Physician.

Really though, if you're a prospective physician, it's not about the money, right?

Way oversimplified there. A physician's production does not just reflect his or her income but the income of office workers, record keepers, lab techs, and mid levels who all work in his office. The decline in payment will not simply be "we're taking 30K away from the physician" it will be a decline in reimbursements across the board. Reimbursements that have to be used to pay for your office and it's staff. It's easy to say "You shouldn't be in it for the money" but I wonder if people feel comfortable saying that to the nurses and other workers who would be affected by this. Or telling patients that they are no longer able to obtain certain services from the group because a decrease in pay has made it impossible to maintain the equipment that would have been needed.
As I stated above physicians will not simply eat a decrease in pay for their sake and their employees. So they will counter by increasing their patient load resulting in even less time with their patients moving more and more away from the physician model that the public demands.
So I guess the real question could be as a prospective physician are you going to be that kind of physician you detailed in your personal statement or are you going to be an emotionless machine that just signs off on charts and never sees or touches a patient.

 

[AwesomO]

If "everyone" has insurance, who's going to fill up the ER at 3 AM with crying kids or random inexplicable pain? Won't they just wait till daylight and go to the nearest ped/fam med practice?

Will the ER as we know it be transformed into a place reserved for actual life-threatening emergencies? Could that happen?

ERs are still filled with insured individuals. If you work in one past 5 pm till 8 am you'll see the majority of the patients are insured and have PCPs but are there because their docs are closed and told them to go to the ER. Pretty messed up if you think about it.