Pharmacist Salary Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Chiyo said:
Illinois doesn't even consider their pharmacists as professionals... & I heard the governer is considering allowing Canadian pharmacists to have Illinois pharmacist license (or some sort).
Click to expand...

The Illinois pharmacy practice act was just revised this past year, and there is no such thing in it. The federal government has already shut down the importation prescription plan. The Illinois pharmacy community has done a good job of killing proposals which would limit our ability to practice. The new remote or non-resident pharmacy provisions very clearly state, at minimum, the pharmacist involved must have a valid license from a U.S. state. There have been other proposals like that before, and they have never advanced anywhere. Right now that proposal is stuck in committee and has been so for close to three months. Pharma will make sure that bill goes nowhere. Illinois is headquarters to several large pharmaceutical companies.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Why are you going to let a few dollars per hour determine your professional career? Do what you enjoy and satisfies you professionally, the money comes in whichever field you pursue.
 
In my area, hospitals are offering differentials for evenings and weekends. A DOP I talked to said the salaries will go up a bit in 3-6 months, after initial training (this will vary). Like others said, I don't think your career decision should depend on a relatively small difference.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
another thing to consider about salary is that although retail pharmacists start out with a higher salary, their pay usually doesn't increase even after years of experience. i feel like in hospital you can reach retail salary after working like 5-10 years..I could be wrong but atleast I had that impression
 
I took a $4/hr paycut to got to hospital from retail....not bad considering the quality of life difference.
 
KARM12 said:
I took a $4/hr paycut to got to hospital from retail....not bad considering the quality of life difference.
Click to expand...

how many hours do you work at the hospital? I've heard crazy stories that people in hospital work long hours and stressful hours but I always thought it just like a 9-5 job haha
 
I got offered virtually the same hourly wage for a hospital and retail job (in Portland).
 
the base pay is lower - but don't forget about differential.

at my hospital after 7pm on weekdays is 18%
weekend days is 13%
after 7pm on weekends is 26%

the differential adds up (unless you do m-f 9-5 but very few people at my hospital do that) and evens out the pay.
 
Printo said:
Well both Obama & Clinton are looking to mandate some form of universal/socialized health care. How much would such a program affect the profession of pharmacy?
Click to expand...

We were promised changes in healthcare back during Bill Clinton's presdiency. Nothing ever came of that. There are too many powerful lobbying groups out there that will prevent any kind of change from ever happening.

In my opinion, insurance companies are the worst part of health care. They take too big of a slice of the pie for their inefficient "middle-management."
 
jpharm445 said:
That's not true according to the legal definition in the Illinois Pharmacy Act.

(k‑5) "Pharmacist" means an individual health care professional and provider currently licensed by this State to engage in the practice of pharmacy.


http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1318&ChapAct=225%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B85%2F&ChapterID=24&ChapterName=PROFESSIONS+AND+OCCUPATIONS&ActName=Pharmacy+Practice+Act%2E
Click to expand...

Ah, I was speaking of it figuratively. I meant that Illinois doesn't recognize pharmacists as 'health care professionals' who can make professional decisions. As seen is Happel vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc case (766 N.E.2D 1118), they stick to "traditional approach" of viewing pharmacists inferior to physicians and not recognize the values pharmacists can bring to the patient care. In the lawmaker's viewpoint, pharmacists are nothing more than a pill pusher... This is more apparent when compared to similar cases from other states. (I'm not here to degrade pharmacy profession, just pointing out what perceptions we are having here.)
 
genesis09 said:
The Illinois pharmacy practice act was just revised this past year, and there is no such thing in it. The federal government has already shut down the importation prescription plan. The Illinois pharmacy community has done a good job of killing proposals which would limit our ability to practice. The new remote or non-resident pharmacy provisions very clearly state, at minimum, the pharmacist involved must have a valid license from a U.S. state. There have been other proposals like that before, and they have never advanced anywhere. Right now that proposal is stuck in committee and has been so for close to three months. Pharma will make sure that bill goes nowhere. Illinois is headquarters to several large pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...

Nowhere I said it was in the law. That proposal is just, a proposal... I would assume that IPhA and ICHP would not let that go through... however, it just saddens me tha someone could 'think' to come up with such a hideous bill. What kind of perception do they have to have on the pharmacy profession and the quality of pharmacy education to bring such proposal?

And it was only last year they created a distinction between pharmacy technicians and interns...:rolleyes:

Impressions left on me while studying Illinois Law last year...just not that impressive. We have a long way to go.
 
In Happel V. Wal-Mart, it said pharmacists have a responsibility to warn about potential drug interactions. It was ruled against Wal-Mart in the long run. Kaisin V. Osco said that in terms of side effects, a pharmacy is only responsible for as much as it discloses.
There are always stupid bills trying to get pass. Every year for the pass several, there has a been a bill trying to legalize medical marijuana, and it has gone no where. There is currently a bill which would require prescribers to place diagnoses on the prescription and require pharmacists to place the diagnosis on the label.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
In arizona a lot of the people on state medicaid abuse the system, I see these people going to the ER 4-5 times a week complaining of pain in hopes of getting an rx for percocet... The fact that the wait right now in emergency rooms is at least 5 hours doesn't stop them because they don't work and don't have anything better to do but to watch montel williams and jerry springer. If there was universal health care this would only increase, right now there are millions of people who would be doing this but don't because they have to pay 20% and the ER isn't cheap. So if we do go universal health care stock up on the vicodins and percocets.
 
museabuse said:
In arizona a lot of the people on state medicaid abuse the system, I see these people going to the ER 4-5 times a week complaining of pain in hopes of getting an rx for percocet... The fact that the wait right now in emergency rooms is at least 5 hours doesn't stop them because they don't work and don't have anything better to do but to watch montel williams and jerry springer. If there was universal health care this would only increase, right now there are millions of people who would be doing this but don't because they have to pay 20% and the ER isn't cheap. So if we do go universal health care stock up on the vicodins and percocets.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support this besides a few anecdotal stories on what you saw in one ER in some hospital in Arizona?
 
museabuse said:
In arizona a lot of the people on state medicaid abuse the system, I see these people going to the ER 4-5 times a week complaining of pain in hopes of getting an rx for percocet... The fact that the wait right now in emergency rooms is at least 5 hours doesn't stop them because they don't work and don't have anything better to do but to watch montel williams and jerry springer. If there was universal health care this would only increase, right now there are millions of people who would be doing this but don't because they have to pay 20% and the ER isn't cheap. So if we do go universal health care stock up on the vicodins and percocets.
Click to expand...


I think you are referring to the concept of moral hazard which In my opinion is something that is often misunderstood and an excuse overused.

HC's mission SHOULD be to increase the overall health of a population and in order to do this, there needs to be active participation from patients as many problems need to be diagnosed to be treated. But this requires that a patient actually takes an active role in their own health care and bring themselves to get checked up. In fact, there is a lot of pressure on patients to be responsible for their own health.

If that means getting things checked out when they are worried something is strange, then it should be encouraged. You can't fault patients for not knowing if things are serious or not because they don't have a background in health. If they think something is wrong, it should be their right to know if its legit or not.

This line of thinking can actually save tons of money because early detection can save a lot of money in intervention type medicine and you get healthier people instead of forcing people to wait for things get serious and have expensive surgeries. win win in my opinion....
 
RXpress said:
One could expect:
- Lowered salaries
- Less competent practitioners. This is due to government mandates to put out practitioners, just think of the corruption that happens when people who know people get into politics. Competition among applicants decreases in this situation leading to less qualified students and graduates.
- Near halt in innovative methods of treatment etc. due to lack of funding for research and decreased incentive
- Decreased incentive is a beast on its own - it causes a lot of problems
- Horribly decreased reimbursement for all those involved in health care
- Moral Hazard - huge problem with increased demand for services that may not be necessary
- Switch from provider-governed procedures to government/insurance governed services; provider no longer decides what's best for you, the person holding the purse strings does
- What about the chronically ill? They cost a lot... This is mostly speculative, but you can find some articles where certain places have had to cut spending on these patients in order to care of more acute cases.

These are just a few things that I have come across. If you do a good search you can find good reasons why we should not utilize "universal" health care.
For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml
But beside these articles, and you'll find many supporting universal health care, one has to really think about the consequences of each type of system and those of us that are part of the health care system need to pay special attention to these issues.

Okay, off my soapbox. :)

I have much much more to say about this so beware!
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! I'm super conservative, and all of these protests at UCSF for universal healthcare are driving me nuts! Lol, though I think doctors have more to lose in a universal healthcare system than pharmacists. So why are med students demanding universal healthcare? I don't know. . . I agree with you about the poor reimbursement. I heard somewhere that the government decides what the price of reimbursement is to the pharmacy for Medicare and Medicaid. Not surprisingly its less than private insurance plans. Currently I'm seeing a doctor for an endocrine disorder that is awesome. I have to bill insurance myself for his visits, super annoying, but its worth it because he's better than my free student health care. Anyway, if I had to pay for universal health care, and also for my separate doctor visits that would be very expensive! It's the principle of the matter too. Hmmm, I won't go into it because I don't want to offend anyone. I'm against socialism though; very against socialism! I can see why poor people would want universal health care; they aren't the ones paying for it. I can see why the rich people would want it; increased taxes don't really matter so much to them. What I don't see is why middle class people are for this. If anyone would like to help those less fortunate then good for them. Donate your money. Donate lots of your money! Anyway, look how government has screwed up Social Security. Right now I'm paying hefty taxes into a system that probably won't even be around when I'm old. I don't trust them with our nation's health care. Does anyone else out there trust them? I live in constant fear that our country is going to turn socialist. Maybe it was the book, "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand that made me so afraid of socialism, but at the moment I'm very very scared :scared:
 
I really liked the movie "Sicko". I was just in France, by the way, for an international piano competition where I finished 2nd place. Paris is much cleaner and nicer than the major cities here in my opinion. And everyone is very friendly. The French are not rude like is so rumored here. Guess what? We should just copy what they do and have universal health care. Without universal health care, the system will be drained. Universal health care ensures equal care among everybody. So we will just have to pay a little more in taxes. In Europe, or France at least, the taxes are included in the food and everything. And the prices did not seem that high there.

In Europe, there is also better public transporation and they are less reliant on gas. Gas was always expensive there, and people do not need to rely on cars as much.

Guess what? We should build a much better railway system in the US like Europe does.

We do a lot of things here that just do not make sense. Health care is one of them.

It is obvious that we need a more "socialized" system if we are going to stay on top of things. If we rely too much on the concept of "laissez faire", a drain will be placed on the economy due to the war in Iraq and too many baby boomers retiring. There will be nothing left.

We need the government to intervene and impose a system similar to that of Europe. Otherwise, we will see problems here, while in France, Germany, etc., everything will be fine because of their well-thought out system of different social programs for everyone.

Hence, I think we should scrap the system and copy what is done in Europe.
 
chibipinkbunny said:
Yes, thank you! I'm super conservative, and all of these protests at UCSF for universal healthcare are driving me nuts! Lol, though I think doctors have more to lose in a universal healthcare system than pharmacists. So why are med students demanding universal healthcare? I don't know. . . I agree with you about the poor reimbursement. I heard somewhere that the government decides what the price of reimbursement is to the pharmacy for Medicare and Medicaid. Not surprisingly its less than private insurance plans. Currently I'm seeing a doctor for an endocrine disorder that is awesome. I have to bill insurance myself for his visits, super annoying, but its worth it because he's better than my free student health care. Anyway, if I had to pay for universal health care, and also for my separate doctor visits that would be very expensive! It's the principle of the matter too. Hmmm, I won't go into it because I don't want to offend anyone. I'm against socialism though; very against socialism! I can see why poor people would want universal health care; they aren't the ones paying for it. I can see why the rich people would want it; increased taxes don't really matter so much to them. What I don't see is why middle class people are for this. If anyone would like to help those less fortunate then good for them. Donate your money. Donate lots of your money! Anyway, look how government has screwed up Social Security. Right now I'm paying hefty taxes into a system that probably won't even be around when I'm old. I don't trust them with our nation's health care. Does anyone else out there trust them? I live in constant fear that our country is going to turn socialist. Maybe it was the book, "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand that made me so afraid of socialism, but at the moment I'm very very scared :scared:
Click to expand...


Doctors in a universal health care system get paid very well. They are definitely in the top income bracket and command a salary well above the majority of the population. I'm basing this on Canadian doctors who get paid fee for service (they get paid for every patient they see). General practitioners in Canada can get around 230 000 dollars which is DEFINITELY not chump change. It might be lower than American GP's but to be honest, it's a sacrifice (insert tear) that American health professionals will have to make if they want universal HC. But honestly, its really hard to complain making 230 grand plus when there's a buttload of people who will never even see or even comprehend that much money.

Also, universal HC can do tons for the middle class. I'm not too sure about stats or anything, but I've read about people going bankrupt because of a major health problem. This could be due to over-sensationalized news reports and may not be typical....but it makes sense of how easy one can slip into that world. I guess with universal HC, you know can develop a major illness, get into a big accident, and not worry about how your going to pay it or how much of it is covered (or if it is covered) and just focus on getting better. because getting sick, and having the stress of fighting insurance to cover it can be a major added stress thats not needed
 
Bingo!! Stroodle has it right!! Health care is a mess in the US and should be seen as a big embarassment!!

Canada and Europe has it correct!!
 
cdpiano27 said:
Bingo!! Stroodle has it right!! Health care is a mess in the US and should be seen as a big embarassment!!

Canada and Europe has it correct!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Is it ideal? Of course not. But definitely not embarassing.

Heaven forbid, but what if a loved one woke up and found out they had CA. Where would you prefer they had to seek treatment? France or the US?
 
I think that even if it lowers salaries by quite a bit, universal healthcare is something our country really needs. I would be willing to make "only" 70k a year (still a very decent salary) so that people could actually have affordable healthcare here.

Oh, and Sicko really does a great job showing the inadequacies of our healthcare system. Our infant mortality rates are higher than pretty much every other 1st world nation, our life expectancy is lower compared to countries with universal health care, etc.

And even if you have insurance, there's no guarantee that they won't try to screw you at some point, by claiming that your necessary trreatment is too experimental or whatever. My family is middle class and we've always had insurance, but when my dad was in the hospital for 3 days this summer we got slapped with a 50k bill. My parents went through months of appeal and finally got the insurance to pay, but its still costing them a few grand out of pocket. My little sister is also facing some medical issues that have so far cost my parents 700 bucks out of pocket. Don't think that the current health care system doesn't screw middle or upper class - it can happen to anyone who has the audacity to get sick or have an accident.

For those of you very against socialism... how do you feel about the state-funded fire department, police station, public schools, etc?
 
For those of you very against socialism... how do you feel about the state-funded fire department, police station, public schools, etc?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know...maybe if we charged people for putting out their fires, they'd be more careful. Right now, with our system of Universal Fire Extinguishing, people can just willy nilly fall asleep while smoking, or leave a deep fryer unattended or neglect the state of the wiring in their houses, and not take responsibility for their actions. And those of us non-smoking, house-inspecting, fryer-attending folks end up having to subsidize the careless ones.

Boggles the mind that we let the government run the police and fire departments. All these decades, we had no idea we were on a slippery slope ending in communism!
 
Pharmavixen said:
Well, I don't know...maybe if we charged people for putting out their fires, they'd be more careful. Right now, with our system of Universal Fire Extinguishing, people can just willy nilly fall asleep while smoking, or leave a deep fryer unattended or neglect the state of the wiring in their houses, and not take responsibility for their actions. And those of us non-smoking, house-inspecting, fryer-attending folks end up having to subsidize the careless ones.

Boggles the mind that we let the government run the police and fire departments. All these decades, we had no idea we were on a slippery slope ending in communism!
Click to expand...

I don't think you can fault people for getting fires...

It's kind of like health care, it's hard to fault people for getting sick! Especially when a lot of people have financial barriers to take part in preventative medicine. There's a lot of pressure for people to be responsible for their own health but there's no incentives...just costs that deter people from getting things checked out.

and I keep my sprinklers on 24/7, I have a nice moist house, no fires will ever dare come near me
 
AngelaCL said:
I think that even if it lowers salaries by quite a bit, universal healthcare is something our country really needs. I would be willing to make "only" 70k a year (still a very decent salary) so that people could actually have affordable healthcare here.
Click to expand...

If I'm not wrong, if you make a 100k a year, and the government now currently taxes 30% of your income, wouldn't you be making 70k currently? Would you be willing to go down to 65k or 60k when taxes get raised to support more socialist programs? I didn't become a pharmacist for money, but after going through all of this work, I don't want to give more than 30% of it to the government. My husband's a Japanese citizen still, so maybe we'll move to Japan if they raise taxes. Japan is at a little under 30% income tax. I would rather be a stay at home mom than be a tool of the government!

Actually there's a better thread about this in the medical forum. It's interesting because they address what will happen to health care more so than socialism. They predict mostly negative things though. I'm not as well informed as they are, so they make much better arguements than I do ^_^'

Hey AngelaCL, I'm sorry about your dad. . . I have about 1800 dollars in medical expenses from just 6 months ago, and it sucks. I have insurance, but that's just what happens. . . Anyway, I'm lucky to be able to have the opportunity to choose such a great endocrinologist. If he were free everyone would be going to him, and I would have to wait over a year just to get an appointment. Maybe I wouldn't even be able to get an appointment because everyone would want to see him. The horror!!!! If I weren't going to him then my life would be miserable. He keeps my Synthroid level high ^_^

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. I wouldn't say that having public schools is socialism. The reason public schools were created was to give American citizens an education so that they could vote. If I'm not mistaken it was Thomas Jefferson that felt a public education was necessary for democracy. They're not doing a very good job with it though. My public education was not very good. I learned most of what I know from my mom who tutored me. The government is not the best at solving all problems. I wish I could have gone to a private school, but my parents didn't have enough money. Even as a conservative with libertarian beliefs I believe that you're right, it is necessary for some things to be controlled by the state, like public roads, policeman, fireman, and the mail. I don't think everything should be controlled by the government though. They're very inefficient, which leads to current problems like our Social Security mess :rolleyes:
 
chibipinkbunny said:
If I'm not wrong, if you make a 100k a year, and the government now currently taxes 30% of your income, wouldn't you be making 70k currently? Would you be willing to go down to 65k or 60k when taxes get raised to support more socialist programs?
Click to expand...

Sure. If you're saying that taxes are already at 30%, whats another 5-10 k over a year?
 
For 2008, in the $78,851–$164,550 bracket, and filing, "Single," the income tax is 28%. It went down in the past few years. Maybe because of President Bush? Don't worry though, things will go your way shortly, and this income bracket will be paying 40% in the future. I will then stop working and move to Japan, and maybe teach English ^_^
 
chibipinkbunny said:
For 2008, in the $78,851–$164,550 bracket, and filing, "Single," the income tax is 28%. It went down in the past few years. Maybe because of President Bush? Don't worry though, things will go your way shortly, and this income bracket will be paying 40% in the future. I will then stop working and move to Japan, and maybe teach English ^_^
Click to expand...

lol I think you have a head start in getting assimilated into Asian culture with that whole ^_^ thing heh

But I think you might be disappointed with Japan, not only are they prone to frequent Godzilla attacks and crazy white women attacking you looking for a guy named Bill....their government is heavily involved with many aspects of life and I think the tax rate for your income bracket would be at 30%. Also, their leading party is the Liberal Democratic Party and their biggest opposition is the Social Liberal Democratic Party of Japan.

Now i'm no expert, but judging on their names....I'm pretty sure your gonna wake up every night in a cold sweat wondering if those damned socialist bastards are going to steal your babies and force them to work in a steel plant
 
In that debate tonight, 'ol Hillary and Obama claimed that they would not raise taxes for those making less than $200,000 (Obama) or $250,000 (Clinton). I dunno....if that's the case it wouldn't affect the common pharmacist. I'll be in a 2 pharmacist family and after deductions, I'll be under both numbers.

Nonetheless, I still plan on voting for myself for the third consecutive presidential election. Republicans and Democrats are so pathetically incompetent at actually running a country it really is depressing. I just need 65,000,000 or so more votes...
 
stroodle said:
lol I think you have a head start in getting assimilated into Asian culture with that whole ^_^ thing heh

But I think you might be disappointed with Japan, not only are they prone to frequent Godzilla attacks and crazy white women attacking you looking for a guy named Bill....their government is heavily involved with many aspects of life and I think the tax rate for your income bracket would be at 30%. Also, their leading party is the Liberal Democratic Party and their biggest opposition is the Social Liberal Democratic Party of Japan.

Now i'm no expert, but judging on their names....I'm pretty sure your gonna wake up every night in a cold sweat wondering if those damned socialist bastards are going to steal your babies and force them to work in a steel plant
Click to expand...

:laugh: Lol, I guess you have a point. Yeah Japan is socialist, and my husband says they also have corrupt politicians. Plus I felt super-awkward over there because I'm a six foot tall blonde; I stood out, and people stared. However, I like their work ethic, and socialism works well over there. Oh well, guess I'm out of other ideas ^_^'
 
chibipinkbunny said:
:laugh: Lol, I guess you have a point. Yeah Japan is socialist, and my husband says they also have corrupt politicians. Plus I felt super-awkward over there because I'm a six foot tall blonde; I stood out, and people stared. However, I like their work ethic, and socialism works well over there. Oh well, guess I'm out of other ideas ^_^'
Click to expand...

But hey, that doesn't mean you can't stop believing lol

There's one thing I like about the current American system is that their really innovative (but sometimes too innovative) and there are stories where Canadians go there for treatment instead of getting it here. I'm just not sure how typical this is or if this is overblown by our media. I'm living in Alberta (the most conservative province) and there's a huge push for a two tiered system and I'm not too happy about that...
 
Would you be willing to go down to 65k or 60k when taxes get raised to support more socialist programs?
Click to expand...
Oh, for the love of...universal health care is cheaper....universal health care is cheaper.....universal healthcare is cheaper....

You Americans spend at least twice as much per person on health care than we Canadians. So where in the heck do you get the notion that a CHEAPER system is going to result in higher taxes?

I'll tell you where: private/for profit healthcare companies, who stand to lose billions and will stop at nothing in the propaganda war, spreading lies about the Canadian system (or the British, French, etc) in order to protect their bottom line.

My American Republican-voting dad moved up here in 1969, and he's a total convert. He's still very conservative, but now thinks UHC is a basic service the government should provide (along with police, fire, and military).
 
two of the main problems plaguing our healthcare system are 1) the privatization of healthcare in which human life has become a capitalist's business that strives to make profit and increase the value of stocks while undermining the basics of what healthcare was supposed to be: an attempt at bettering human life. 2) many healthcare practitioners have, in a way, been brainwashed by the promise of big green bills instead of what used to be the primary concern of providers: again, human life.

yes, most of us who have chosen pharmacy [and other healthcare professions] have looked at the money as well. i have. i admit it. however, there is that basic idea of humanity which we often forget in the process of becoming these money hungry idiots. human life should be our first concern, not what color bmw we'd like to get next. there are a few words i'd like to insert here that would not be allowed on teh forums. mostly for the 'every man to himself' theorists. it's okay to want to live comfortably through lucrative professions. it is not okay to let this desire take main priority and let it interfere with the well being of others.

i personally, would like to see socialized healthcare in place. i don't think there would be a huge discrepency [but then again, i am no economist] as to the salary of workers. we often freak out over the taxes. now, let me get this through your head: the us spends the most money on healthcare in the world. however, our quality, as for including all people, sucks. it sucks. plain and simple: sucks. now, why do we spend so much and still receieve fairly crappy healthcare as compared to other westernized nations? because the money is being used in the wrong way. we need to drive that money to the correct usage which would probably enable universal healthcare to work successfully. no, it is not a perfect system. there is no such thing as perfection. but it is a far greater system than what we have now.

here i'd like to point out that every developed nation has universal healthcare except for us. hmm, let's see, every advanced nation has it, has a greater life span and most have lower infant mortality rates compared to us; yet me spend far greater money? may i say f'd up?


a great point made in sicko was that the us has socialized institutions in place: fire departments, police forces, and postal services. now, imagine these privatized. imagine you having to buy a plaque and having to plaster it on your front door so that when your house in burning down, the fire fighters can see it and say "oh my! the woman has a plaque! we should help her as she is paying us." yet, the house next door has none, catches fire, and the firefighters ignore it. messed up much? i think so. or imagine a police officer only helping those in need who 'buy' service from them. yea, doesn't make sense, huh? then why the hell is commercialized medicine making sense to some people? wanna know why? profit. it's business.

as for the myths of socialized healthcare and horror stories, what sources have you consulted? yea, that's why they have better quality of life, huh? that's why they look at the us system with great disdain [or at least the few i know] and that's why our system is failing immensely. again, in sicko, it was stated that fifty percent of families that filed for bankruptcy did so because of some serious medical illness. out of those, seventy-five percent were actually insured...they were insured. yet, they received very little help. why? the insurance companies play games. their objective if to maximize profit and minimize care. they purposely deny healthcare in order to meet these standards of money making.

honestly, i don't know about you guys, but even if my salary has to be cut in order to make sure that everyone is entitled to healthcare, i'm up for it. god forbid something happens to you; i.e. you're seriously ill. you have no way of making the juicy salary that would have insured you a wonderful life. now you're stuck, without health insurance [or you've been denied]. what will you do now, pharmd? at least if you've got universal healthcare, you will be entitled to the care you need. it's bull**** when someone dies because our healthcare system is now a business. complete bull****.

the least you can do is open yourself to this information and educate yourself. you cannot form a sound opinion, let alone make a sound decision, without knowing all sides to an issue. i, myself, need to conduct further research as i am quite fresh to this topic. in fact, i am currently doing so and came across this thread.
 
oops, i just realized that all i stated has been stated before. amazing how it still doesn't crack your skull.
 
OMFG ROFL!!! You should do stand up! Seriously! :laugh:

stroodle said:
lol I think you have a head start in getting assimilated into Asian culture with that whole ^_^ thing heh

But I think you might be disappointed with Japan, not only are they prone to frequent Godzilla attacks and crazy white women attacking you looking for a guy named Bill....their government is heavily involved with many aspects of life and I think the tax rate for your income bracket would be at 30%. Also, their leading party is the Liberal Democratic Party and their biggest opposition is the Social Liberal Democratic Party of Japan.

Now i'm no expert, but judging on their names....I'm pretty sure your gonna wake up every night in a cold sweat wondering if those damned socialist bastards are going to steal your babies and force them to work in a steel plant
Click to expand...
 
Ooops, sorry I meant to edit and not repost this. See below for original response.
 
Lol, well at least Ayn Rand agrees with me on the subject :rolleyes: It's a little about the money, but I agree its much more than that. This same topic is on the medical forums, and its really good! Those that argue against socialized healthcare have very valid points, and they have nothing to do with greedy doctors. Yeah, you're right I have a chronic health problem, and dealing with insurance isn't fun. Also, because of that chronic health problem I have other complications. Blah. . . but I fear that with universal health care my current endocrinologist might not be available, or the government wouldn't be willing to pay that much for him (he's a top doctor), and then I'd have to go to a mediocre doctor. Then I'd have to pay for the tax for a mediocre doctor that I'm not using + additional out of pocket expenses for my current doctor. Don't know if I could afford that double whammy, and then my quality of care would be compromised :( Anyway, I know that you think, "Sicko," is the epitome of truth, but I find it biased. Just like you might find right-wing conservative talk shows as extremely biased; I however feel that Rush, Michael Savage, Armstrong and Getty, and Hannity, are telling the truth. I've listened to liberal talk shows before, and goodness knows I've had many liberal lecturers at Berkeley. I'm willing to listen to the other side, but I disagree.
 
If we had universal health care, I personally would be happy to know that I could be covered regardless of my preexisting condition. More than any amount of money on my mind I am always worried about being covered under company insurance since I can't get the most important thing covered on my own!

(SO hopefully the hospital job will go through so I can be covered even when I work part time during pharm school!)
 
chibipinkbunny said:
Lol, well at least Ayn Rand agrees with me on the subject :rolleyes: It's a little about the money, but I agree its much more than that. This same topic is on the medical forums, and its really good! Those that argue against socialized healthcare have very valid points, and they have nothing to do with greedy doctors. Yeah, you're right I have a chronic health problem, and dealing with insurance isn't fun. Also, because of that chronic health problem I have other complications. Blah. . . but I fear that with universal health care my current endocrinologist might not be available, or the government wouldn't be willing to pay that much for him (he's a top doctor), and then I'd have to go to a mediocre doctor. Then I'd have to pay for the tax for a mediocre doctor that I'm not using + additional out of pocket expenses for my current doctor. Don't know if I could afford that double whammy, and then my quality of care would be compromised :( Anyway, I know that you think, "Sicko," is the epitome of truth, but I find it biased. Just like you might find right-wing conservative talk shows as extremely biased; I however feel that Rush, Michael Savage, Armstrong and Getty, and Hannity, are telling the truth. I've listened to liberal talk shows before, and goodness knows I've had many liberal lecturers at Berkeley. I'm willing to listen to the other side, but I disagree.
Click to expand...





i had to google ayn rand. i don't necessarily support a complete socialist turn over. things can go wrong. i know. but complete capitalism isn't all that great either. i like the idea of capitalism to a limited extent. i feel that a mixture of a socialist and a capitalist approach would do the nation good. socialism in only those things that are extremely important. and i count education and health care as one of them. quite frankly, both suck right now.

you do realize that what the current administration has done in the past few years hasn't exactly been in the best interest of democracy?

i'm trying to expand my horizon further on universal health care [and am in the process of doing so...once my finals are over] beyond sicko by reading books.

and as for your doctor, i can understand your concern. my mother also has a chronic illness and has been making numerous visits to various doctors in the past few years. she has private insurance. doesn't seem to be doing her much good, in my opinion.
 
I think the fundamental question is whether you think healthcare is a right or a privilege. If you think it's a right, then universal coverage has to be initiated in whatever form it takes. I don't think there should be much concern that pharmacist salaries will take a hit. People won't stay in the profession if they don't feel they're being adequately compensated and "adequate compensation" can be defined broadly.

There was an interesting episode of Frontline on PBS that explored the tack that various countries have taken. You can watch it online - just google Frontline to get to their site.

If healthcare is a privilege, then there's nothing wrong with the current system at all. Leave it as it is.
 
SpirivaSunrise said:
Well, I hope you're not relying on wikipedia for the basis to your answer with a question like that...
Click to expand...

If you read the link, you'll see that the rankings are two separate datasets with data directly taken from the CIA World Factbook and the UN. I think this is a case where Wikipedia is reliable, given the nature of the data sources.
 
JimblyUK said:
If you read the link, you'll see that the rankings are two separate datasets with data directly taken from the CIA World Factbook and the UN. I think this is a case where Wikipedia is reliable, given the nature of the data sources.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the data. A country's average life expectancy can tell a lot about some things, but I don't think the correlation between where you'd want to receive treatment if you suddenly found out you had cancer is that clear. A decision like that takes more research and consideration than looking at an age "endpoint". And I can tell you where my family, friends, and acquaintances who live in countries ranked # 8, 11, 14 and 24 go. Does everyone have the means to do this? Of course not, but when they do...they don't think twice about seeking health care in the US.

I've lived overseas longer than I have in the US. But when I come home and hear people complain...I can't help but smile and shake my head. Sure, there's a lot we can learn from other systems to improve what we have...but I apologize, I can't sit back and smile when someone says the current system is an "embarrassment".
 
Ah, if we're going to get nitpicky on sources, I'll shoot.

Perhaps you'd like to cite your/some sources showing that cancer care in the US is better than that of France?

Or should we just rely on your own N=(some number less than 10) study?

Sure life expectancy isn't necessarily great evidence of better cancer treatment, but it does support trying to generally live more like the country of _____ if we do want to live longer. And without better evidence, I don't see why our approach to cancer treatment should necessarily be any different either.

Living longer >>> Better Cancer Treatment.

It's a lot like how cholesterol drugs are often looked at and compared, on the basis of their ability to reduce cholesterol, while we should really be looking at which makes you live longer/better since that's our ultimate goal. (Longer= a more objective measurement for sure, better is a whole lot more subjective).

I guess the question asked should be: "Would you rather live in a country where on average you'll receive x faster treatment, if, on average, you'll live y less years?"
 
RXpress said:
One could expect:
- Lowered salaries
- Less competent practitioners. This is due to government mandates to put out practitioners, just think of the corruption that happens when people who know people get into politics. Competition among applicants decreases in this situation leading to less qualified students and graduates.
- Near halt in innovative methods of treatment etc. due to lack of funding for research and decreased incentive
- Decreased incentive is a beast on its own - it causes a lot of problems
- Horribly decreased reimbursement for all those involved in health care
- Moral Hazard - huge problem with increased demand for services that may not be necessary
- Switch from provider-governed procedures to government/insurance governed services; provider no longer decides what's best for you, the person holding the purse strings does
- What about the chronically ill? They cost a lot... This is mostly speculative, but you can find some articles where certain places have had to cut spending on these patients in order to care of more acute cases.

These are just a few things that I have come across. If you do a good search you can find good reasons why we should not utilize "universal" health care.
For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml
But beside these articles, and you'll find many supporting universal health care, one has to really think about the consequences of each type of system and those of us that are part of the health care system need to pay special attention to these issues.

Okay, off my soapbox. :)

I have much much more to say about this so beware!
Click to expand...


You can delete all other stuff you wrote, and save letters in future. That reason alone is alpha and omega of opposition to socialized healthcare.
Uuuuh, lower salaries! Uuuh, no more aspirin at a $50 per pill! No more penis caps for $350, who could ever thought of that! The fact that all those 40 or 45 countries with higher life expectancy have socialized healthcare , and probably alltogether spend on healthcare less than US alone, means nothing, as long as I can charge whatever i want.
I feel sorry for healthcare workers with $ signs tatooed on their eyeballs.
 
SomeGuy said:
Ah, if we're going to get nitpicky on sources, I'll shoot.

Perhaps you'd like to cite your/some sources showing that cancer care in the US is better than that of France?

Or should we just rely on your own N=(some number less than 10) study?

Sure life expectancy isn't necessarily great evidence of better cancer treatment, but it does support trying to generally live more like the country of _____ if we do want to live longer. And without better evidence, I don't see why our approach to cancer treatment should necessarily be any different either.

Living longer >>> Better Cancer Treatment.

It's a lot like how cholesterol drugs are often looked at and compared, on the basis of their ability to reduce cholesterol, while we should really be looking at which makes you live longer/better since that's our ultimate goal. (Longer= a more objective measurement for sure, better is a whole lot more subjective).

I guess the question asked should be: "Would you rather live in a country where on average you'll receive x faster treatment, if, on average, you'll live y less years?"
Click to expand...

Goodness, you know I didn't intend for that small n to indicate any statistical significance. All I intended to convey is that the grass is always greener...and there's always room for improvement within any system. No society is going to sit around and think, hey, this is perfect, lets leave it exactly how it is. An ideal health care system could take a page from everyone, just to think of a few...statutory health insurance like in Germany, decentralization like Italy, general practitioners that serve as gatekeepers as in the UK, funding requirements like Canada...heck, can you imagine something like ARTG in Australia working here? Requiring proof of economic value before a drug is approved? It just isn't going to happen...

But assuming that there's a positive (or negative) correlation between age expectancy and quality of care doesn't work either. Who's to say that France's expectancy isn't 80 in spite of...or the US' isn't 78 because of...

We can't just look at the age number and assume there's a statistical correlation...we don't know. When you look at how statins affect mortality (as opposed to LDL or some other arbitrary endpoint), they eliminate all other variables when determining the relationship. Age expectancy just has too many variables....and we don't even know how each respective system affects it to begin with. That's all ;)
 
chibipinkbunny said:
Yeah, you're right I have a chronic health problem, and dealing with insurance isn't fun. Also, because of that chronic health problem I have other complications. Blah. . . but I fear that with universal health care my current endocrinologist might not be available, or the government wouldn't be willing to pay that much for him (he's a top doctor), and then I'd have to go to a mediocre doctor. Then I'd have to pay for the tax for a mediocre doctor that I'm not using + additional out of pocket expenses for my current doctor. Don't know if I could afford that double whammy, and then my quality of care would be compromised :(
Click to expand...


Although your fears are understandable, I feel that they are due to misunderstanding of socialized health care.

In your scenario, you present a two tiered system (like in the UK). Although it has its benefits (like a safety net), it definitely has its problems. One of them like the scenario like you described where there is a limited number of doctors that have to be shared between two systems. What ends up happening is that all the good HC people go to the system that pays more (aka private sector) and purposefully and artificially generate long wait times in the public sectors to encourage people to switch into the private sector. so yeah, for those two reasons (limited number of HC people and artificailly long wait times) two tier system has its flaws.


but if USA had socialized HC, you probably would have NO problem seeing your endocrinologists at all! Every doctor gets paid the same (fee for service is probably the most likely method).

One big problem with deciding what is a "good doctor" or not is that a fancy waiting room in a fancy building can make people believe that the doctor is better than he or she actaully is. A fancier waiting room can justify a higher fee. In socialized HC where its free at the point of service, this isn't really a problem as all doctors are the same "fee"

so overall, if USA became socialized medicine, you could still see your endocrinologists and it wont be too crowded. Most likely he'll keep all his current patients and refuse new patients if he already has too many. Except now, you get to see him for free (at the point of service) and dont have to put up with pesky insurance
 
stroodle said:
Although your fears are understandable, I feel that they are due to misunderstanding of socialized health care.

In your scenario, you present a two tiered system (like in the UK). Although it has its benefits (like a safety net), it definitely has its problems. One of them like the scenario like you described where there is a limited number of doctors that have to be shared between two systems. What ends up happening is that all the good HC people go to the system that pays more (aka private sector) and purposefully and artificially generate long wait times in the public sectors to encourage people to switch into the private sector. so yeah, for those two reasons (limited number of HC people and artificailly long wait times) two tier system has its flaws.


but if USA had socialized HC, you probably would have NO problem seeing your endocrinologists at all! Every doctor gets paid the same (fee for service is probably the most likely method).

One big problem with deciding what is a "good doctor" or not is that a fancy waiting room in a fancy building can make people believe that the doctor is better than he or she actaully is. A fancier waiting room can justify a higher fee. In socialized HC where its free at the point of service, this isn't really a problem as all doctors are the same "fee"

so overall, if USA became socialized medicine, you could still see your endocrinologists and it wont be too crowded. Most likely he'll keep all his current patients and refuse new patients if he already has too many. Except now, you get to see him for free (at the point of service) and dont have to put up with pesky insurance
Click to expand...

Well I guess this doesn't violate HIPPA because it's myself, but I have a problem with your definition of "good doctor." I feel that there is a HUGE difference in the quality of doctors. I have hypothyroidism, which sounds simple enough, but it has many complexities. There's a huge problem with people that have hypothyroidism getting the medication they need. Most doctors like to undermedicate. I'd say the majority of doctors/endocrinologists like to undermedicate for hypothyroidism. These leaves hypothyroid patients with many of their symptoms. While not life threating, it severely impairs the quality of life. Also, many patients who have Hashimoto's disease have a normal TSH, but very high level of antibodies. Many doctors/endocrinologists don't understand that current research shows many of these patients have hypothyroid symptoms that improve with levothyroxine. So, yeah I had to go to a good endocrinologist that listens to my symptoms, and medicates based on that. My current PCP didn't really care how I felt, and wouldn't increase my medication, which is why I searched for a really good endocrinologist. Sorry if this got a bit wordy, but it's a huge thing with hypo patients. Also in addition many doctors/endocrinologist won't mediate with T3, they will only give levothyroxine, which is T4. Unfortunately, some hypo patients have problems converting T4-->T3 so their Free T4 tests are normal, but their Free T3 is low. Again, they would have all the symptoms of hypothyroidism, but many doctors just look at Free T4 and TSH, and undermedicate. There's more, but yeah. . . I define a good doctor to be one that actually listens to my symptoms, understands the problem, and medicates accordingly. Also I have a family member that had a ruptured disk in his back. I think he went to 3-4 doctors who told him that it was just old age. Well, this person was completely incapacitated, and couldn't sit for more than 30 minutes because the pain was so severe. It wasn't old age! One of his doctors referred him to a spine specialist who found the problem, and operated. This is a leading spine specialist, so the surgery went without a hitch. I've known more than one person who had a failed spinal operation because the surgeon wasn't skilled enough. There is definately a difference between a good doctor, and a mediocre doctor. You're right though, I'm not sure how universal HC would materialize in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
Emergency Room Pharmacist
Replies
12
Views
596
KidPharmD
KidPharmD
H
Home infusion pharmacist salary?
Replies
5
Views
1K
_RxRated
_RxRated
P
Immunizing pharmacist CVS
Replies
0
Views
717
pharmdeep
P
S
Pharmacist salary after graduation?
2
Replies
54
Views
9K
radio frequency
radio frequency
A
Is this real? 300k income as a pharmacist?
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
pharm B
pharm B
Top