Obama-nomics is, as a physician,...

[jetproppilot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Obama is not your friend.

You are a decades-long trained professional.

You sacrifice your twentieth decade-and-beyond for this gig.

You live in a capitalistic nation. Not a socialist nation.

As a result of your sacrifices, you are a high wage earner.

Obama wants to level the playing ground.

Penalize the motivated/foresighted/assertive/high wage earners

And at the same time, SLASH governmental reimbursement to physicians.

KNOW WHAT THIS IS GONNA RESULT IN?

A TWO TIER HEALTH SYSTEM.

Many physicians will no longer accept medicare/medicaid.

THE CREAM RISES TO THE TOP.

All top physicians will work in institutions where no medicare/medicaid is recognized.

Those institutions will be privately owned.

It is happening current day.

 

[hoyden]

Many physicians will no longer accept medicare/medicaid.

I think the main problem in dealing with the enemy is underestimating their intelligence and strength. Expecting the enemy to be stupid and idealistic is the worst mistake one can make.
People choose the socialistic ( actually marxist) ideology not because they want to save the world, but because they want to rule the world.



You can always check out but you can never leave....

 

[Coastie]

QFT.

Problem, Jet, is that taking medicaid/medicare will probably soon be a requirement for licensure.

Furthermore, they will probably make regulations/taxation so onerous that places cannot do biz without taking the gov't stuff.

There is precedent in Canada in the 90's where docs were fined/threatened with jail for a)not taking gov't patients and b) "cutting back"/retiring "early".

It's damn scary, and the stories come out more and more each day for nurses to be "empowered" and takeover medicine, and it's not just primary care.

A 2 tier system will eventually come out..I think it will be docs who trained before obamacare vs the ones who trained afterwards...and there will be so many docs needed for the public system, that I imagine it will be more of a sheer luck episode than the "cream rising to the top" for those who get access to the private system jobs.

Basically, we HAVE to defeat the dems in November.

Obama is not your friend.

You are a decades-long trained professional.

You sacrifice your twentieth decade-and-beyond for this gig.

You live in a capitalistic nation. Not a socialist nation.

As a result of your sacrifices, you are a high wage earner.

Obama wants to level the playing ground.

Penalize the motivated/foresighted/assertive/high wage earners

And at the same time, SLASH governmental reimbursement to physicians.

KNOW WHAT THIS IS GONNA RESULT IN?

A TWO TIER HEALTH SYSTEM.

Many physicians will no longer accept medicare/medicaid.

THE CREAM RISES TO THE TOP.

All top physicians will work in institutions where no medicare/medicaid is recognized.

Those institutions will be privately owned.

It is happening current day.

 

[hoyden]

Problem, Jet, is that taking medicaid/medicare will probably soon be a requirement for licensure.

Furthermore, they will probably make regulations/taxation so onerous that places cannot do biz without taking the gov't stuff.

There is precedent in Canada in the 90's where docs were fined/threatened with jail for a)not taking gov't patients and b) "cutting back"/retiring "early".

Yep, those are the particular details how is it going to happen.

I am always amazed when I see a lot of people thinking the left is in reality what they preach.... maybe that is because I know form the inside what they are
Working under mafia suprvision and rule might be easier.

 

[Idiopathic]

oh look, jpp read the copy of anesthesiology news that came today

 

[cfdavid]

oh look, jpp read the copy of anesthesiology news that came today

Wait a second. Regardless if that's true, don't we all formulate opinions based at least in part on what we read?? Even so, what we subscribe to is based upon individual experiences, values, and beliefs.

So, I don't think that someone whom reads an article/opinion piece, and then shares a similar position, publicly, (because he/she happens to have come to a similar conclusion or has had a similar experience) is doing anything other than, well, sharing his/her opinion/experiences.....

cf

 

[Idiopathic]

edit: never mind

 

[Captain Howdy1]

So your mad because you can only afford one private jet instead of two? How greedy of you!!

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I agree that we are probably moving towards a two-tier health system, public and private. I think my disagreement comes in that I don't necessarily think it's the end of the world if it happens. A sizable chunk of people already get government health care in the form of military families and vets, and they survive.

My issue is with staffing such a public health service. It would be a disaster trying to recruit. You would have to dramatically change the incentive system to encourage participation. Because I agree, tying licensure into it is dangerous territory. At that point, you're almost conscripting doctors into service. I suppose you could argue that some countries do that with mandatory military service, but the US hasn't done that in quite awhile and I think it would be a tough sell. Plus, morale is going to be better if free will (or the illusion thereof) is more or less intact

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[SleepIsGood]

Like I stated on another thread. now is the time to support and FUND republicans or sympathizers to physician interests. Nurses hve been doing this for >10 years now. They got it.

The reason why our interests arent looked at is because a majority of us dont care. Also a MAJORITY of us just let it go and allowed CRNAS and AA's to run rampant (remember MilitaryMD...I bet he's regreting everything he's ever said especially wtih those articles COastie brought up).

Bug the hell out of senators and congressmen. They need to know we care and they need to know they'll losee our $$$upport if they dont support our interests.

 

[Bertelman]

So your mad because you can only afford one private jet instead of two? How greedy of you!!

You're just a wealth of insight on this board. Hot nurses, private jets.

😴

 

[SleepIsGood]

oh look, jpp read the copy of anesthesiology news that came today

anything politically relevant? I just checkedit...didnt see anything..

 

[Idiopathic]

story on how the new HC law is placing restrictions on physician owned hospitals that participate in MC/MA and how these hospitals will probably elect to not serve this population to avoid these restrictions.

 

[SleepIsGood]

story on how the new HC law is placing restrictions on physician owned hospitals that participate in MC/MA and how these hospitals will probably elect to not serve this population to avoid these restrictions.

old news..

unfortunately the feds will do what they did in MA...tie it to licensure.

Unless we vote in people that take care it and repeal the damn bill.

Again, when I was in capital hill last month. It was amazing to hear how the bill CAN be repealed if there's a drastic chang, come november.

 

[avatarftw]

Dude, have you calculated the net worth of an average primary care doctor and a specialist? Compare that to a petroleum engineer or some business guy with their degrees.

A high salary doesn't necessarily mean high net worth if you are delaying earning money for such a long time and accruing meaningful debt.

It is a good net worth for most doctors, but its not nearly as much as you think.

"I heard doctors make 2 million yearly and only work 30 hours a week," seems to be the misguided opinion of a lot of the laity.

So your mad because you can only afford one private jet instead of two? How greedy of you!!

 

[Idiopathic]

It was amazing to hear how the bill CAN be repealed if there's a drastic chang, come november.

gee, i wonder who told you that 🙄

bills can be repealed at any time, btw - why would this one be any different?

 

[DOwnage]

gee, i wonder who told you that 🙄

bills can be repealed at any time, btw - why would this one be any different?

I think this means it can be repealed with virtually no repercussions. It's a huge entitlement and typically if you even suggest repealing an entitlement, people become ravenous. This is one of the rare entitlements I've seen where people don't really want anything to do with.

 

[jwk]

Like I stated on another thread. now is the time to support and FUND republicans or sympathizers to physician interests. Nurses hve been doing this for >10 years now. They got it.

The reason why our interests arent looked at is because a majority of us dont care. Also a MAJORITY of us just let it go and allowed CRNAS and AA's to run rampant (remember MilitaryMD...I bet he's regreting everything he's ever said especially wtih those articles COastie brought up).

Bug the hell out of senators and congressmen. They need to know we care and they need to know they'll losee our $$$upport if they dont support our interests.

Please don't lump AA's in with the CRNA's. We're quite different philosophically and politically. Running "rampant" doesn't describe us.

It is indeed time to get the Republicans back in control, but don't forget they have their own set of faults that need to be dealt with.

 

[Bertelman]

I think this means it can be repealed with virtually no repercussions. It's a huge entitlement and typically if you even suggest repealing an entitlement, people become ravenous. This is one of the rare entitlements I've seen where people don't really want anything to do with.

I wouldn't say there are no repercussions. If a Repub majority overturns the law, they will face increasing pressure to do something to get healthcare expenses back on track. As long as this bill is in place, it's easy to blame the outcome on the Dems. Take away that bill, you'd better come up with a pretty remarkable solution.

 

[bronx43]

What's the point of blaming all this on Obama? The hard truth to accept in this country is that health care spending (consumption) is unsustainable at this rate. There are obviously a myriad of reasons for how we ended up in this mess, but there had to have been a reform of some kind - Obama's or otherwise. The new health care reform bill is trying to address two issues simultaneously; it's trying to expand access AND cut costs.
I don't think many people here have a problem necessarily with the former. It's the latter that is utterly troublesome, but it's essentially unavoidable. The Democrats can be in office, or the Republicans can be in office. Both will have to yield to the rule of the federal budget, and our ridiculous national debt, unless you want our fiat money to degrade down to its intrinsic value. If a Republican is in office, what do you suppose would happen? The status quo, which is impossible in the long run?

 

[Captain Howdy1]

Dude, have you calculated the net worth of an average primary care doctor and a specialist? Compare that to a petroleum engineer or some business guy with their degrees.

A high salary doesn't necessarily mean high net worth if you are delaying earning money for such a long time and accruing meaningful debt.

It is a good net worth for most doctors, but its not nearly as much as you think.

"I heard doctors make 2 million yearly and only work 30 hours a week," seems to be the misguided opinion of a lot of the laity.

No but I have calculated the salary which does mean a lot. Average salary for PCP is 186,044 and the average salary for specialist is 339,738 while the average salary for a petroleum engineer is 108,910.

When I come to this forum all I do is see anesthesiologist whine like little babies. If they aren't whining about the health care reform they are whining about CRNAs. I mean stop whining you guys get paid way above the average salary. What more do you want have money like Bill Gates? 😀

And you guys should take a page form the book of the CRNAs, they don't complain!!

 

[jwk]

What's the point of blaming all this on Obama? The hard truth to accept in this country is that health care spending (consumption) is unsustainable at this rate. There are obviously a myriad of reasons for how we ended up in this mess, but there had to have been a reform of some kind - Obama's or otherwise. The new health care reform bill is trying to address two issues simultaneously; it's trying to expand access AND cut costs.
I don't think many people here have a problem necessarily with the former. It's the latter that is utterly troublesome, but it's essentially unavoidable. The Democrats can be in office, or the Republicans can be in office. Both will have to yield to the rule of the federal budget, and our ridiculous national debt, unless you want our fiat money to degrade down to its intrinsic value. If a Republican is in office, what do you suppose would happen? The status quo, which is impossible in the long run?

Are you really as naive as you sound in this post?

The problems in health care are not being blamed on Maobama - it's the solution, or the attempt at a solution, which is worse than the problem is purports to fix.

Just curious - who is paying for your medical school education? How much does it cost? How much will you have in student loans? What specialty are you looking at? How long is the residency? How long will it take you to repay those student loans after residency? How much does it cost to run an office? How much does it cost for malpractice insurance? Will you be in a specialty where your first $100k or more in income goes to malpractice insurance? What are the costs of benefits to yourself and/or your employees if you have any? Or would you rather be a slave to the federal government, which is really what Maobama and the Democrats have in mind?

NONE OF THIS was covered in MaobamaCare. Nothing about costs of medical education, nothing about dealing with tort reform and the billions upon billions of dollars it ads in costs (god knows we can't offend the trial lawyers). But let me guess - I'd be willing to bet you voted for him.

The Democrats were determined to get a bill through - ANY BILL - good or bad or downright crappy - just to say they got a bill through. They were far more interested in getting ANY bill through and flexing their political muscle and power than they were in actually getting it right. They were so interested in getting ANY bill through that they bypassed their own built-in system of checks and balances and instead of having a conference committee to hammer out differences in the House and Senate versions, they put a BAD BILL through.

November can't get here soon enough - both 2010 and 2012.

 

[bronx43]

Are you really as naive as you sound in this post?

The problems in health care are not being blamed on Maobama - it's the solution, or the attempt at a solution, which is worse than the problem is purports to fix.

Just curious - who is paying for your medical school education? How much does it cost? How much will you have in student loans? What specialty are you looking at? How long is the residency? How long will it take you to repay those student loans after residency? How much does it cost to run an office? How much does it cost for malpractice insurance? Will you be in a specialty where your first $100k or more in income goes to malpractice insurance? What are the costs of benefits to yourself and/or your employees if you have any? Or would you rather be a slave to the federal government, which is really what Maobama and the Democrats have in mind?

NONE OF THIS was covered in MaobamaCare. Nothing about costs of medical education, nothing about dealing with tort reform and the billions upon billions of dollars it ads in costs (god knows we can't offend the trial lawyers). But let me guess - I'd be willing to bet you voted for him.

The Democrats were determined to get a bill through - ANY BILL - good or bad or downright crappy - just to say they got a bill through. They were far more interested in getting ANY bill through and flexing their political muscle and power than they were in actually getting it right. They were so interested in getting ANY bill through that they bypassed their own built-in system of checks and balances and instead of having a conference committee to hammer out differences in the House and Senate versions, they put a BAD BILL through.

November can't get here soon enough - both 2010 and 2012.

I never said this bill was perfect or anything close to it. In fact, I too, would have preferred a more thorough look at health care on the part of Congress. However, I was simply addressing the overwhelming notion that Obama is somehow single handedly responsible for the future decrease in physician reimbursement rates, when in fact, it's simply inevitable regardless of the party in charge.

And I find it hilarious that your entire reasoning for why this bill is bad is that it's bad for the medical provider and future medical providers.

 

[Consigliere]

No but I have calculated the salary which does mean a lot. Average salary for PCP is 186,044 and the average salary for specialist is 339,738 while the average salary for a petroleum engineer is 108,910.

When I come to this forum all I do is see anesthesiologist whine like little babies. If they aren't whining about the health care reform they are whining about CRNAs. I mean stop whining you guys get paid way above the average salary. What more do you want have money like Bill Gates? 😀

And you guys should take a page form the book of the CRNAs, they don't complain!!

I suspected you were an idiot but here is the confirmation that you are!

 

[strongboy2005]

No but I have calculated the salary which does mean a lot. Average salary for PCP is 186,044 and the average salary for specialist is 339,738 while the average salary for a petroleum engineer is 108,910.

When I come to this forum all I do is see anesthesiologist whine like little babies. If they aren't whining about the health care reform they are whining about CRNAs. I mean stop whining you guys get paid way above the average salary.

Yes, but that family practice doctor is paying $42,000 a year to service his loans and put off retirement savings until he was 30 years old. The petroleum engineer has been making $100,000 for 7 years longer than the family practice doc, making money on investments and interest, and has no debt to speak of. Plus, family practice doctors work more hours (probably 1.5-2X as much, especially during residency). So, who do you think is the big winner?

The point of all this is if all of a sudden all areas of medicine started paying like family practice, then medicine as a field is going to start looking a lot less attractive to the cream of the crop.

 

[hoyden]

old news..

unfortunately the feds will do what they did in MA...tie it to licensure.

Unless we vote in people that take care it and repeal the damn bill.

Again, when I was in capital hill last month. It was amazing to hear how the bill CAN be repealed if there's a drastic chang, come november.

 

[2win]

I suspected you were an idiot but here is the confirmation that you are!

He didn't check his (her) TSH maybe....
Going Galt.

 

[2win]

obama is not your friend.

you are a decades-long trained professional.

You sacrifice your twentieth decade-and-beyond for this gig.

You live in a capitalistic nation. Not a socialist nation.

as a result of your sacrifices, you are a high wage earner.

obama wants to level the playing ground.

penalize the motivated/foresighted/assertive/high wage earners

and at the same time, slash governmental reimbursement to physicians.

know what this is gonna result in?

a two tier health system.

many physicians will no longer accept medicare/medicaid.

the cream rises to the top.

all top physicians will work in institutions where no medicare/medicaid is recognized.

Those institutions will be privately owned.

It is happening current day.

I waited for your post almost one year.
Finally....

 

[jwk]

And I find it hilarious that your entire reasoning for why this bill is bad is that it's bad for the medical provider and future medical providers.

There are plenty of reasons the bill is bad, and the main one is it does NOTHING about the cost of care. NOTHING!!! All it does is pander to the Obama lovers who would prefer the government make all their decisions for them and provide everything for them.

BTW - There's already a physician shortage (especially primary care) and nursing shortage. Who do you think will care for all these patients?

So again - who did you vote for?

 

[SleepIsGood]

I never said this bill was perfect or anything close to it. In fact, I too, would have preferred a more thorough look at health care on the part of Congress. However, I was simply addressing the overwhelming notion that Obama is somehow single handedly responsible for the future decrease in physician reimbursement rates, when in fact, it's simply inevitable regardless of the party in charge.

And I find it hilarious that your entire reasoning for why this bill is bad is that it's bad for the medical provider and future medical providers.[/QUOTE]

So what?

Yes, we all work and do the right thing for our patients, but if you dont stand up and get concerned, and bring the issues to the forefront for ourselves, no one will. The lawyers wont. Clearly the congressmen (democrats) or Obama wont. Everyone wants a piece of the MD's salary, w/o putting the time and effort into it.

It's not being selfish, it's being reasonable. Who do you want taking care of your dad,mom, or loved one during that CABG ? Do you want the slacker that smoked weed all through out high school and college and then dropped out a few times (oops sounds like a CRNA). OR do you want somone that busted their butt, got the grades, did well?

Answer is obvious, well then pony up and pay them appropriately, or else those 'slackers' are what you are going to get taking care of your parents,etc.

 

[avatarftw]

Yes! You sir, are smart! 🙂

Its great to hear logical people look at issues from a holistic perspective. I.E, rationally and considering all variables.

Yes, but that family practice doctor is paying $42,000 a year to service his loans and put off retirement savings until he was 30 years old. The petroleum engineer has been making $100,000 for 7 years longer than the family practice doc, making money on investments and interest, and has no debt to speak of. Plus, family practice doctors work more hours (probably 1.5-2X as much, especially during residency). So, who do you think is the big winner?

The point of all this is if all of a sudden all areas of medicine started paying like family practice, then medicine as a field is going to start looking a lot less attractive to the cream of the crop.

 

[avatarftw]

I'm sorry, but your statement is pretty incompetent.

If the PCP makes 186,000 gross (which I doubt, I haven't seen figures that high for the average primary care doctor) while the specialist makes 339,000 gross (You must be talking about orthopedic surgeons or radiologists!), taxes and loan debt take out a lot.

For example, if I become a PCP making 186,000 gross (which I doubt is a likely compensation), I will be devoting roughly 33,000 a year gross to pay back my loan debt over 20 years. Mind you that I will have lived an utterly pedestrian lifestyle during medical school and residency. As of now, I don't have a car and just bike places; my rent costs about 40% less than my colleagues.

That leaves behind 153,000 gross. Take away 40% for taxes (mind you that the marginal tax rates will most likely go up once the Bush tax cuts phase out) and you have 91,800 net.

That's actually not that much once you consider the fact that I lost 7 years of income. The petroleum engineer making 80,000 gross would be taking in about 56,300 dollars net. Thus, he/she would have 394,100 dollars after 7 years. If they invest wisely, I may never catch up.

*Note that I assumed that we both had no undergraduate debt. Also, many engineers are getting masters degrees, which changes the equation substantially. Do you see why primary care is not that popular?

I can't believe you didn't calculate the NET WORTH. If you don't do so, you're just looking at a tiny portion of the financial picture. Its like illogical people that buy a car that gets great gas mileage over a cheaper car that gets slightly worse mileage. Well, the most important number to consider is the ownership cost, which incorporates gas mileage, depreciation, maintenance, etc into the equation.

No but I have calculated the salary which does mean a lot. Average salary for PCP is 186,044 and the average salary for specialist is 339,738 while the average salary for a petroleum engineer is 108,910.

When I come to this forum all I do is see anesthesiologist whine like little babies. If they aren't whining about the health care reform they are whining about CRNAs. I mean stop whining you guys get paid way above the average salary. What more do you want have money like Bill Gates? 😀

And you guys should take a page form the book of the CRNAs, they don't complain!!

 

[rsgillmd]

Re: Captain Howdy

:troll:

 

[bronx43]

There are plenty of reasons the bill is bad, and the main one is it does NOTHING about the cost of care. NOTHING!!! All it does is pander to the Obama lovers who would prefer the government make all their decisions for them and provide everything for them.

BTW - There's already a physician shortage (especially primary care) and nursing shortage. Who do you think will care for all these patients?

So again - who did you vote for?

I actually agree with the fact that the major weakness of the bill is the lack of emphasis on bending the cost curve. There are some sections of the bill that stipulates decreased reimbursement for diagnostic imaging, but there is still a glaring lack of heavy-handed maneuvers to bring down costs.

As for the PCP shortage, I don't understand where you're getting at. Nowhere in the bill, nor Obama's own mouth, does it say that he wants to cut reimbursement to PCPs. If anything, he wants to emphasize on primary care, as opposed to specialist care. In fact, simply by decreasing the income of lucrative specialties, you would increase the status of family medicine by proxy.

I don't know why it matters who I voted for. I voted for Obama, but that was because the candidates the GOP put up weren't exactly appetizing. If Romney or Paul gets the nod next time around, I would vote GOP. I don't go by party - I go by platform.

 

[bronx43]

I never said this bill was perfect or anything close to it. In fact, I too, would have preferred a more thorough look at health care on the part of Congress. However, I was simply addressing the overwhelming notion that Obama is somehow single handedly responsible for the future decrease in physician reimbursement rates, when in fact, it's simply inevitable regardless of the party in charge.

And I find it hilarious that your entire reasoning for why this bill is bad is that it's bad for the medical provider and future medical providers.[/QUOTE]

So what?

Yes, we all work and do the right thing for our patients, but if you dont stand up and get concerned, and bring the issues to the forefront for ourselves, no one will. The lawyers wont. Clearly the congressmen (democrats) or Obama wont. Everyone wants a piece of the MD's salary, w/o putting the time and effort into it.

It's not being selfish, it's being reasonable. Who do you want taking care of your dad,mom, or loved one during that CABG ? Do you want the slacker that smoked weed all through out high school and college and then dropped out a few times (oops sounds like a CRNA). OR do you want somone that busted their butt, got the grades, did well?

Answer is obvious, well then pony up and pay them appropriately, or else those 'slackers' are what you are going to get taking care of your parents,etc.

Huh? Who ever said anything about slackers vs non-slackers, or MDAs vs CRNAs?

Physicians should be compensated well for their relative intelligence and maximal efforts. It's just a pity that the compensation system for physicians is intrinsically tied to the consumption of health care - something that is horridly unsustainable at the moment. The interventional cardiologist obviously gets paid differently should one patient use his service versus twenty patients using his service.
Therefore, it's actually ironic that the very mechanism allowing some specialists to pull in massive amounts of cash is the one that will ultimately bring down the house.

 

[staylor21]

I'm sorry, but your statement is pretty incompetent.

If the PCP makes 186,000 gross (which I doubt, I haven't seen figures that high for the average primary care doctor) while the specialist makes 339,000 gross (You must be talking about orthopedic surgeons or radiologists!), taxes and loan debt take out a lot.

For example, if I become a PCP making 186,000 gross (which I doubt is a likely compensation), I will be devoting roughly 33,000 a year gross to pay back my loan debt over 20 years. Mind you that I will have lived an utterly pedestrian lifestyle during medical school and residency. As of now, I don't have a car and just bike places; my rent costs about 40% less than my colleagues.

That leaves behind 153,000 gross. Take away 40% for taxes (mind you that the marginal tax rates will most likely go up once the Bush tax cuts phase out) and you have 91,800 net.

That's actually not that much once you consider the fact that I lost 7 years of income. The petroleum engineer making 80,000 gross would be taking in about 56,300 dollars net. Thus, he/she would have 394,100 dollars after 7 years. If they invest wisely, I may never catch up.

*Note that I assumed that we both had no undergraduate debt. Also, many engineers are getting masters degrees, which changes the equation substantially. Do you see why primary care is not that popular?

I can't believe you didn't calculate the NET WORTH. If you don't do so, you're just looking at a tiny portion of the financial picture. Its like illogical people that buy a car that gets great gas mileage over a cheaper car that gets slightly worse mileage. Well, the most important number to consider is the ownership cost, which incorporates gas mileage, depreciation, maintenance, etc into the equation.

You didn't finish out your calculation. Assume the engineer graduates at 26 and works 40 years, retiring at age 60. Using your numbers, his net is roughly $2.3 million (56300*40). Assuming you also retire at 66, you will work 33 years (7 less) and have 3.0 million. I won't bother calculating out net present values, but my guess is you need to assume some seriously good return for the engineer to make his $2.3 million equal to your $3.0 million in absolute value.

Simply put, on the whole, there are (a) fewer vacancies in the market for primary care docs (after all, most medical schools fill while many engineering schools don't), and (b) on average, med school is probably a bit more competitive than engineering school (depends on whether you're talking about MS vs PhD--but the PhD guys are earning larger salaries generally). I think the market is saying something about how "bad" a career in primary care is vs engineering.

 

[jwk]

As for the PCP shortage, I don't understand where you're getting at. Nowhere in the bill, nor Obama's own mouth, does it say that he wants to cut reimbursement to PCPs. If anything, he wants to emphasize on primary care, as opposed to specialist care. In fact, simply by decreasing the income of lucrative specialties, you would increase the status of family medicine by proxy.

I said there is a shortage of physicians. Paying physicians less, which is what Obamacare does, and not dealing with the costs of education, which are skyrocketing, means fewer of the best and brightest will go into medicine. Maybe you want an imported barely-English speaking FMG in charge of your medical care (typical at the VA already and it SUCKS). I don't.

I don't know why it matters who I voted for. I voted for Obama, but that was because the candidates the GOP put up weren't exactly appetizing. If Romney or Paul gets the nod next time around, I would vote GOP. I don't go by party - I go by platform.[/QUOTE]

I knew it. And of course it matters who you voted for. 👎 Still happy with that choice?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I don't know why it matters who I voted for. I voted for Obama, but that was because the candidates the GOP put up weren't exactly appetizing. If Romney or Paul gets the nod next time around, I would vote GOP. I don't go by party - I go by platform.

I knew it. And of course it matters who you voted for. 👎 Still happy with that choice?[/QUOTE]

This is why I stay out of politics for the most part. I remember when Bush was elected, Democrats everywhere were pulling their hair out and threatening to go to Canada/Europe because our country was going to go to hell in a handbasket. Fast forward 8 years, and this time it's Republicans who are threatening to go to Canada/Europe because our country is going to hell in a handbasket.

I know it seems like every decision the opposing party makes is a harbinger of doom, but let's be honest, it's not. Life will go on. Maybe the health care system will be slightly better as a result of this plan, maybe it will be slightly worse. Nobody knows.

 

[Consigliere]

I knew it. And of course it matters who you voted for. 👎 Still happy with that choice?

This is why I stay out of politics for the most part. I remember when Bush was elected, Democrats everywhere were pulling their hair out and threatening to go to Canada/Europe because our country was going to go to hell in a handbasket. Fast forward 8 years, and this time it's Republicans who are threatening to go to Canada/Europe because our country is going to hell in a handbasket.

I know it seems like every decision the opposing party makes is a harbinger of doom, but let's be honest, it's not. Life will go on. Maybe the health care system will be slightly better as a result of this plan, maybe it will be slightly worse. Nobody knows.[/QUOTE]

This has been the most intelligent, and most accurate, thought thus far.

 

[avatarftw]

Yeah, I know. In my haste, I myself didn't look at the entire equation. 🙂

I thought that the market for mechanical engineers (I don't know about petroleum or chemical engineers) was pretty bad right now?

Its not all about money, however. I'm not in med school to get rich but I'd like for our compensation to stay somewhat fair.

You didn't finish out your calculation. Assume the engineer graduates at 26 and works 40 years, retiring at age 60. Using your numbers, his net is roughly $2.3 million (56300*40). Assuming you also retire at 66, you will work 33 years (7 less) and have 3.0 million. I won't bother calculating out net present values, but my guess is you need to assume some seriously good return for the engineer to make his $2.3 million equal to your $3.0 million in absolute value.

Simply put, on the whole, there are (a) fewer vacancies in the market for primary care docs (after all, most medical schools fill while many engineering schools don't), and (b) on average, med school is probably a bit more competitive than engineering school (depends on whether you're talking about MS vs PhD--but the PhD guys are earning larger salaries generally). I think the market is saying something about how "bad" a career in primary care is vs engineering.

 

[bronx43]

I don't know why it matters who I voted for. I voted for Obama, but that was because the candidates the GOP put up weren't exactly appetizing. If Romney or Paul gets the nod next time around, I would vote GOP. I don't go by party - I go by platform.

I knew it. And of course it matters who you voted for. 👎 Still happy with that choice?[/QUOTE]

I meant why does it matter in the context of this discussion who I voted for? I told you that had the GOP put up better candidates like Romney or Paul, I would have voted GOP.
As far as my satisfaction with Obama, I think like all presidents, he has done some things well and some things not so well. I don't want to go into an in-depth debate about his political moves from the past year and half, but as far as his effects on the future of income for physicians, he did nothing that wasn't coming our way already. In fact, I contend that he could have done much much more to curb health care spending.

 

[hoyden]

I actually agree with the fact that the major weakness of the bill is the lack of emphasis on bending the cost curve. There are some sections of the bill that stipulates decreased reimbursement for diagnostic imaging, but there is still a glaring lack of heavy-handed maneuvers to bring down costs.

As for the PCP shortage, I don't understand where you're getting at. Nowhere in the bill, nor Obama's own mouth, does it say that he wants to cut reimbursement to PCPs. If anything, he wants to emphasize on primary care, as opposed to specialist care. In fact, simply by decreasing the income of lucrative specialties, you would increase the status of family medicine by proxy.

I don't know why it matters who I voted for. I voted for Obama, but that was because the candidates the GOP put up weren't exactly appetizing. If Romney or Paul gets the nod next time around, I would vote GOP. I don't go by party - I go by platform.

are you really THAT stupid?

 

[hoyden]

Huh? Who ever said anything about slackers vs non-slackers, or MDAs vs CRNAs?

don't bother answering my previous question. You obviously ARE that stupid.

 

[hoyden]

I meant why does it matter in the context of this discussion who I voted for? I told you that had the GOP put up better candidates like Romney or Paul, I would have voted GOP.


I don't go by party - I go by platform.

and you are a COWARDLY LIAR as well. Somebody who would rather vote for Romney or Paul instead of McCain would not participate in the election at all. But a potential Romney/Paul voter would never ever vote for Obama.

If he goes by the platform, not by the party

 

[GoodmanBrown]

don't bother answering my previous question. You obviously ARE that stupid.

and you are a COWARDLY LIAR as well. Somebody who would rather vote for Romney or Paul instead of McCain would not participate in the election at all. But a potential Romney/Paul voter would never ever vote for Obama.

If he goes by the platform, not by the party

FYI, I flagged your posts for the mods as a TOS violation. I'm a tattler like that.

 

[hoyden]

FYI, I flagged your posts for the mods as a TOS violation. I'm a tattler like that.

GFY

 

[dhb]

If you want to debate avoid name calling if you don't want to debate don't post.
It's fairly easy don't you think?

 

[bronx43]

are you really THAT stupid?

Uh... present an argument?

 

[bronx43]

and you are a COWARDLY LIAR as well. Somebody who would rather vote for Romney or Paul instead of McCain would not participate in the election at all. But a potential Romney/Paul voter would never ever vote for Obama.

If he goes by the platform, not by the party

Ok. Cool story bro.