Plastic Surgeon salary after obamacare?

[luli]

Because without Obama that abortion of a bill never gets passed. He used his celebrity status as "the first black president" to swoon mindless sheep in congress. The fact that the majority of Americans opposed the bill despite most acknowledging that we need some sort of reform speaks volumes.

Which part of the healthcare bill do you have problems with, exactly?

• Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for children (and later, for all people) with pre-existing conditions?
• Preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage due to a technicality (like a typo on the insurance form) when the insured person actually gets sick?
• Eliminating lifetime limits so that if you end up with Parkinson's, insurance companies can't leave you uninsured (perhaps after you paid them for 30 years)?
• The establishment of official appeals channels so that you have somewhere to turn when your insurance company turns down your claims and leaves you with six-figure medical debt?
• The small business insurance tax credit?
• Free preventative screenings, such as colonoscopies (which actually lower healthcare costs, because it's generally cheaper to fix someone when they're in the early stages of, say, cancer)?
• Or maybe you don't think children should be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26? What do a bunch of kids need with insurance anyway?
• Loan forgiveness and scholarships to make it affordable for medical students to become PCPs, especially in underserved rural areas?
• Discounts on prescription drugs for your grandma through medicare? (has your grandma ever called you crying about the cost of her medications? Mine has, and it sucked.)
• Or maybe you think it's unfair to insurance companies that they be required to spend 80%-85% of premiums collected on healthcare for their subscribers? (After all, that might cut into the *record* profits they've been making in the last few years!)
• Providing voluntary, buy-in access to long-term disability coverage?
• Maybe you think insurance companies should be able to drop cancer patients who participate in medical trials of experimental drugs for their conditions? (I bet that's doing wonderful things for science!)
• The establishment of insurance exchanges for those who don't have group insurance access through an employer, with minimum coverage requirements? (This is how congress will be getting their coverage when the program starts in 2014.)
• Or maybe, it all boils down to the insurance requirement for you? If so, what specifically makes you uncomfortable about it? I'll be happy to address those concerns directly.

Or are you just spouting rhetoric? Because every person I've asked this question of in person couldn't name a single mandate that they found objectionable. They were just scared. And frankly, I can't blame them. There are plenty of scare tactics coming from our representatives in Washington.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JESSFALLING]

Which version do you want, OP?

Answer 1: No one knows. (Insert statement about how the health care plan you're referencing may not be in action when you go into medicine, etc...)

Answer 2: You'll still make $900k, keep gunning for plastix!

Answer 3: Their salary will get slammed and you'll be lucky to keep up with the Doc-in-a-box FM down the block. Stay away from plastic surgery!

This!

 

[rentedmule]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L662mnhnE9I&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[FSUseminoleEM1]

Because without Obama that abortion of a bill never gets passed. He used his celebrity status as "the first black president" to swoon mindless sheep in congress. The fact that the majority of Americans opposed the bill despite most acknowledging that we need some sort of reform speaks volumes.

The only people who oppose the bill are those who haven't read it. If you actually go through the text, there are a lot of good programs in there. The GOP uses ridiculous, radical language to sway people from even cracking open the bill (or downloading the PDF, rather).

 

[Asyouwereatrio]

Tired of these salary questions, especially in the pre-medical forum. How would we know this? Worry about how much money you'll make as a plastic surgeon after you've been accepted to medical school, successfully completed it, got a good Step 1 score, and got matched to a plastic surgery residency. Then you can complain.

That's a good way to look at it. No sense in worrying until you need to. Not to mention, why should salary make a difference? You should pursue a career that interests you and allows you to really "engage" mentally.

Which version do you want, OP?

Answer 1: No one knows. (Insert statement about how the health care plan you're referencing may not be in action when you go into medicine, etc...)

Answer 2: You'll still make $900k, keep gunning for plastix!

Answer 3: Their salary will get slammed and you'll be lucky to keep up with the Doc-in-a-box FM down the block. Stay away from plastic surgery!

If you mean, how does the existing legislation affect healthcare salaries, it doesn't. All the legislation does is expand medicaid and force people to buy insurance. There are no changes in licensing, reimbursement, healthcare administration, insurance regulation, or anything else. Cash markets are unaffected, and hospitals actually take in slightly more money because ER patients that were previously write offs will now be paying customers through Medicaid.

If you mean, how will the fallout of the legislation affect healthcare salaries, no one has the slightest idea. Will budgetary pushback force a government takeover of healthcare to reduce the cost? Will someone push more modest, 'Swiss' reforms like making all insurance non-profit? Will the health care bill just get killed by congress to solve our debt? No one has the slightest clue. We don't even know if our schools and hospitals will be open on Augest 3rd, let alone how the next 20 years of Congressional delegates are going to react to this very complicated piece of legislation.

Which part of the healthcare bill do you have problems with, exactly?

• Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for children (and later, for all people) with pre-existing conditions?
• Preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage due to a technicality (like a typo on the insurance form) when the insured person actually gets sick?
• Eliminating lifetime limits so that if you end up with Parkinson's, insurance companies can't leave you uninsured (perhaps after you paid them for 30 years)?
• The establishment of official appeals channels so that you have somewhere to turn when your insurance company turns down your claims and leaves you with six-figure medical debt?
• The small business insurance tax credit?
• Free preventative screenings, such as colonoscopies (which actually lower healthcare costs, because it's generally cheaper to fix someone when they're in the early stages of, say, cancer)?
• Or maybe you don't think children should be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26? What do a bunch of kids need with insurance anyway?
• Loan forgiveness and scholarships to make it affordable for medical students to become PCPs, especially in underserved rural areas?
• Discounts on prescription drugs for your grandma through medicare? (has your grandma ever called you crying about the cost of her medications? Mine has, and it sucked.)
• Or maybe you think it's unfair to insurance companies that they be required to spend 80%-85% of premiums collected on healthcare for their subscribers? (After all, that might cut into the *record* profits they've been making in the last few years!)
• Providing voluntary, buy-in access to long-term disability coverage?
• Maybe you think insurance companies should be able to drop cancer patients who participate in medical trials of experimental drugs for their conditions? (I bet that's doing wonderful things for science!)
• The establishment of insurance exchanges for those who don't have group insurance access through an employer, with minimum coverage requirements? (This is how congress will be getting their coverage when the program starts in 2014.)
• Or maybe, it all boils down to the insurance requirement for you? If so, what specifically makes you uncomfortable about it? I'll be happy to address those concerns directly.

Or are you just spouting rhetoric? Because every person I've asked this question of in person couldn't name a single mandate that they found objectionable. They were just scared. And frankly, I can't blame them. There are plenty of scare tactics coming from our representatives in Washington.

+! to all the above quoted posts--all very eloquent and well thought out.

 

[BA11]

I forgot that Obama himself had 60+ votes in the Senate and 200+ in House. My bad.

The general consensus has been that the bill would not have had the necessary votes prior to Obama working his verbal magic. He dressed up a pig in a pretty dress, makeup and six-inch stillettos and a lot of people fell for it.

Also, why is "the first black president" in quotes? I'm pretty sure he's the first black president?

1: For emphasis and 2: He's just as white as he is black. Genetically, Obama is just as "black" as this guy...

And yet anyone who met Jason Kidd on the street would say he is white. It's a sad commentary about how much our country values race.

 

[kwantiko]

Which part of the healthcare bill do you have problems with, exactly?

• Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for children (and later, for all people) with pre-existing conditions?
• Preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage due to a technicality (like a typo on the insurance form) when the insured person actually gets sick?
• Eliminating lifetime limits so that if you end up with Parkinson's, insurance companies can't leave you uninsured (perhaps after you paid them for 30 years)?
• The establishment of official appeals channels so that you have somewhere to turn when your insurance company turns down your claims and leaves you with six-figure medical debt?
• The small business insurance tax credit?
• Free preventative screenings, such as colonoscopies (which actually lower healthcare costs, because it's generally cheaper to fix someone when they're in the early stages of, say, cancer)?
• Or maybe you don't think children should be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26? What do a bunch of kids need with insurance anyway?
• Loan forgiveness and scholarships to make it affordable for medical students to become PCPs, especially in underserved rural areas?
• Discounts on prescription drugs for your grandma through medicare? (has your grandma ever called you crying about the cost of her medications? Mine has, and it sucked.)
• Or maybe you think it's unfair to insurance companies that they be required to spend 80%-85% of premiums collected on healthcare for their subscribers? (After all, that might cut into the *record* profits they've been making in the last few years!)
• Providing voluntary, buy-in access to long-term disability coverage?
• Maybe you think insurance companies should be able to drop cancer patients who participate in medical trials of experimental drugs for their conditions? (I bet that's doing wonderful things for science!)
  [*]The establishment of insurance exchanges for those who don't have group insurance access through an employer, with minimum coverage requirements? (This is how congress will be getting their coverage when the program starts in 2014.)
• Or maybe, it all boils down to the insurance requirement for you? If so, what specifically makes you uncomfortable about it? I'll be happy to address those concerns directly.

Or are you just spouting rhetoric? Because every person I've asked this question of in person couldn't name a single mandate that they found objectionable. They were just scared. And frankly, I can't blame them. There are plenty of scare tactics coming from our representatives in Washington.

Some of the concern surrounding this particular item is that some employers will no longer see a reason to provide insurance as a part of a benefits package.

This may lead to many seeking insurance via this alternative. This means greater spending. In the current state of economic affairs, is greater spending (possibly vastly greater spending), really prudent?

 

[BA11]

Which part of the healthcare bill do you have problems with, exactly?

Medical insurance is a privalege, not a right, and the government is trying to legislate how a previously private entity handles its business. If an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on a past condition, that is their perogative. They're in the business of making money just like everyone else.

Speaking of scare tactics, you know that 45 million uninsured Americans number you probably heard so often? Yeah, that's a complete fabrication used by Washington liberals. The real number of America citizens without health insurance is about half that, and the number of people who actually wish to have health insurance and can't get it is half of that. Sorry, but using those here on visas, illegal immigrants and those who arent pursuing medical insurance don't count. Basically, we're completely overhauling a system that provides good care for those who can afford to a system that will provide subpar care for everyone because of a measley three percent of the population. Sorry, but that's not right. Is it fair? No, but life isnt fair and we can't pass sweeping legislation based on three percent. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. But we can make health care more affordable without turning it over to the federal government, who I'm convinced is capable of effing up a wet dream.

 

[BA11]

The only people who oppose the bill are those who haven't read it. If you actually go through the text, there are a lot of good programs in there. The GOP uses ridiculous, radical language to sway people from even cracking open the bill (or downloading the PDF, rather).

Yes, there are absolutely things that are good in principle within this bill. There are programs that can be implemented to make health care more affordable, however this can be done WITHOUT socializing the industry and sacrificing the quality of care because of this completely false idea so many seem to have that health insurance is a right guranteed by constitution.

 

[Freakfarm0]

So how will Obamacare effect a Plastic Surgeon in private practice?(All cosmetic no sports accidents, car crashes etc).

Back to the question: I don't think cosmetics is going to take a hit. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think insurance companies will pay for things like boob jobs and face lifts.

You'll be gettin' straight cash, homie.

 

[FSUseminoleEM1]

Medical insurance is a privalege, not a right, and the government is trying to legislate how a previously private entity handles its business. If an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on a past condition, that is their perogative. They're in the business of making money just like everyone else.

Speaking of scare tactics, you know that 45 million uninsured Americans number you probably heard so often? Yeah, that's a complete fabrication used by Washington liberals. The real number of America citizens without health insurance is about half that, and the number of people who actually wish to have health insurance and can't get it is half of that. Sorry, but using those here on visas, illegal immigrants and those who arent pursuing medical insurance don't count. Basically, we're completely overhauling a system that provides good care for those who can afford to a system that will provide subpar care for everyone because of a measley three percent of the population. Sorry, but that's not right. Is it fair? No, but life isnt fair and we can't pass sweeping legislation based on three percent. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. But we can make health care more affordable without turning it over to the federal government, who I'm convinced is capable of effing up a wet dream.

Make sure you tell every AdCom this.

Thanks.

 

[KindofBlue]

Which part of the healthcare bill do you have problems with, exactly?

• Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for children (and later, for all people) with pre-existing conditions?
• Preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage due to a technicality (like a typo on the insurance form) when the insured person actually gets sick?
• Eliminating lifetime limits so that if you end up with Parkinson's, insurance companies can't leave you uninsured (perhaps after you paid them for 30 years)?
• The establishment of official appeals channels so that you have somewhere to turn when your insurance company turns down your claims and leaves you with six-figure medical debt?
• The small business insurance tax credit?
• Free preventative screenings, such as colonoscopies (which actually lower healthcare costs, because it's generally cheaper to fix someone when they're in the early stages of, say, cancer)?
• Or maybe you don't think children should be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26? What do a bunch of kids need with insurance anyway?
• Loan forgiveness and scholarships to make it affordable for medical students to become PCPs, especially in underserved rural areas?
• Discounts on prescription drugs for your grandma through medicare? (has your grandma ever called you crying about the cost of her medications? Mine has, and it sucked.)
• Or maybe you think it's unfair to insurance companies that they be required to spend 80%-85% of premiums collected on healthcare for their subscribers? (After all, that might cut into the *record* profits they've been making in the last few years!)
• Providing voluntary, buy-in access to long-term disability coverage?
• Maybe you think insurance companies should be able to drop cancer patients who participate in medical trials of experimental drugs for their conditions? (I bet that's doing wonderful things for science!)
• The establishment of insurance exchanges for those who don't have group insurance access through an employer, with minimum coverage requirements? (This is how congress will be getting their coverage when the program starts in 2014.)
• Or maybe, it all boils down to the insurance requirement for you? If so, what specifically makes you uncomfortable about it? I'll be happy to address those concerns directly.

Or are you just spouting rhetoric? Because every person I've asked this question of in person couldn't name a single mandate that they found objectionable. They were just scared. And frankly, I can't blame them. There are plenty of scare tactics coming from our representatives in Washington.

+1

That's a good way to look at it. No sense in worrying until you need to. Not to mention, why should salary make a difference? You should pursue a career that interests you and allows you to really "engage" mentally.


+! to all the above quoted posts--all very eloquent and well thought out.

Can't tell if being sarcastic..? If you have a problem just spell it out.

Medical insurance is a privalege, not a right, and the government is trying to legislate how a previously private entity handles its business. If an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on a past condition, that is their perogative. They're in the business of making money just like everyone else.

Speaking of scare tactics, you know that 45 million uninsured Americans number you probably heard so often? Yeah, that's a complete fabrication used by Washington liberals. The real number of America citizens without health insurance is about half that, and the number of people who actually wish to have health insurance and can't get it is half of that. Sorry, but using those here on visas, illegal immigrants and those who arent pursuing medical insurance don't count. Basically, we're completely overhauling a system that provides good care for those who can afford to a system that will provide subpar care for everyone because of a measley three percent of the population. Sorry, but that's not right. Is it fair? No, but life isnt fair and we can't pass sweeping legislation based on three percent. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. But we can make health care more affordable without turning it over to the federal government, who I'm convinced is capable of effing up a wet dream.

Yes, there are absolutely things that are good in principle within this bill. There are programs that can be implemented to make health care more affordable, however this can be done WITHOUT socializing the industry and sacrificing the quality of care because of this completely false idea so many seem to have that health insurance is a right guranteed by constitution.

It truly amazes me how anyone can argue against the health care reform bill with this kind of logic, unless they have a vested interest in insurance companies (your dad doesn't happen to be like a CEO or something at AIG, does he?).

How about electricity? Why not let only the ones who can afford it use it? Or water? These commodities aren't things that are given to those who can pay for it. It has to be supplied to EVERYONE, that's why they're called necessities. Do you think medical service does not qualify as a "necessity?" Just because you don't have money, do you not have the right to be treated, or the right to live? (I'm not referring to you here, per se, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you're filthy rich!!!)
By the way, even if you can afford insurance do realize you won't be eligible for insurance because you've been diagnosed of a disease? Hmm. Interesting, isn't it? (Again, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you'll never get diagnosed with anything throughout the next 50~60 some years of your life. )

 

[rentedmule]

Medical insurance is a privalege, not a right, and the government is trying to legislate how a previously private entity handles its business. If an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on a past condition, that is their perogative. They're in the business of making money just like everyone else.

Speaking of scare tactics, you know that 45 million uninsured Americans number you probably heard so often? Yeah, that's a complete fabrication used by Washington liberals. The real number of America citizens without health insurance is about half that, and the number of people who actually wish to have health insurance and can't get it is half of that. Sorry, but using those here on visas, illegal immigrants and those who arent pursuing medical insurance don't count. Basically, we're completely overhauling a system that provides good care for those who can afford to a system that will provide subpar care for everyone because of a measley three percent of the population. Sorry, but that's not right. Is it fair? No, but life isnt fair and we can't pass sweeping legislation based on three percent. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. But we can make health care more affordable without turning it over to the federal government, who I'm convinced is capable of effing up a wet dream.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
(Yes, it is overused, but oh so relevant.)

 

[KindofBlue]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
(Yes, it is overused, but oh so relevant.)

LOL Awesome!

 

[DoctwoB]

How about electricity? Why not let only the ones who can afford it use it? Or water? These commodities aren't things that are given to those who can pay for it. It has to be supplied to EVERYONE, that's why they're called necessities. Do you think medical service does not qualify as a "necessity?" Just because you don't have money, do you not have the right to be treated, or the right to live? (I'm not referring to you here, per se, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you're filthy rich!!!)
By the way, even if you can afford insurance do realize you won't be eligible for insurance because you've been diagnosed of a disease? Hmm. Interesting, isn't it? (Again, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you'll never get diagnosed with anything throughout the next 50~60 some years of your life. )

Actually, you have to pay for water, electricity, gas, etc. Or they shut them off.

Saying "Health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now I personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and I am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But I have no more right to health care then I have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

I personally supported the bill (though think its just pushing the cost issue down the road, where it will explode).

 

[NickNaylor]

Make sure you tell every AdCom this.

Thanks.

If I was asked this I would absolutely argue that it's a privilege.

 

[NickNaylor]

Actually, you have to pay for water, electricity, gas, etc. Or they shut them off.

Saying "Health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now I personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and I am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But I have no more right to health care then I have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

I personally supported the bill (though think its just pushing the cost issue down the road, where it will explode).

Great post. People that argue that healthcare should be a right are usually naive and stuck in lala land.

Universal coverage is something that is a definite good in society. That doesn't make it a right. People throw around "rights" without really considering the ramifications of doing so.

 

[chronicidal]

It's a sad commentary about how much our country values race.

I think it's not about valuing race. It's a commentary about how our country views race. Most "black" people in this country have partial ancestry from Europe. Obama's father immigrated from Kenya, so his father's chances of having white ancestors are somewhat lower. From an ancestry point of view, for Obama, identifying as an African American is very legitimate.

More important than ancestry, I think, is how other people perceive you and how that shapes your identity. Obama may be half white but people have treated him his whole life as a black person.

Medical insurance is a privalege, not a right, and the government is trying to legislate how a previously private entity handles its business. If an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on a past condition, that is their perogative. They're in the business of making money just like everyone else.

Speaking of scare tactics, you know that 45 million uninsured Americans number you probably heard so often? Yeah, that's a complete fabrication used by Washington liberals. The real number of America citizens without health insurance is about half that, and the number of people who actually wish to have health insurance and can't get it is half of that. Sorry, but using those here on visas, illegal immigrants and those who arent pursuing medical insurance don't count. Basically, we're completely overhauling a system that provides good care for those who can afford to a system that will provide subpar care for everyone because of a measley three percent of the population. Sorry, but that's not right. Is it fair? No, but life isnt fair and we can't pass sweeping legislation based on three percent. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. But we can make health care more affordable without turning it over to the federal government, who I'm convinced is capable of effing up a wet dream.

1) Would you argue that good health is a privilege and not a right? Should companies be able to make money directly off the bad health of people?
2) Many of the uninsured don't want it because they feel invincible. Unfortunately, many of them get sick and wind up being unable to pay. Their costs are absorbed by the system and passed onto everyone else.
3) Providing better health for three percent of the population (10 million people) seems like a worthy goal to me.
4) Tell us why the new system will lead to subpar care. I don't think it will.

There are programs that can be implemented to make health care more affordable, however this can be done WITHOUT socializing the industry and sacrificing the quality of care because of this completely false idea so many seem to have that health insurance is a right guranteed by constitution.

5) Tell us how the health care bill socializes the industry. It sets regulations on private insurers and mandates the purchase of private insurance for people who have the means to do so.
6) Health insurance is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. However, health and health care is a universal human right and health care is necessary for maintaining the general welfare of the country. The government provides or ensures many services not guaranteed by the constitution. The US is a welfare state; get used to it.

 

[luli]

Some of the concern surrounding this particular item is that some employers will no longer see a reason to provide insurance as a part of a benefits package.

This may lead to many seeking insurance via this alternative. This means greater spending. In the current state of economic affairs, is greater spending (possibly vastly greater spending), really prudent?

First off, we're not talking about greater government spending, you understand that right? Businesses will be required to contribute regardless of whether the employee gets insurance through the exchange or through a group health plan--and if the company doesn't, it will pay a penalty. Thus, there isn't a big incentive for businesses to drop employee health care coverage.

But you are right--it is a point of controversy, and some companies may just pay the penalty (which will probably be lower than the cost of insurance) and give the finger to employees. It will be interesting to watch how things play out.

 

[BA11]

+1


Can't tell if being sarcastic..? If you have a problem just spell it out.







It truly amazes me how anyone can argue against the health care reform bill with this kind of logic, unless they have a vested interest in insurance companies (your dad doesn't happen to be like a CEO or something at AIG, does he?).

How about electricity? Why not let only the ones who can afford it use it? Or water? These commodities aren't things that are given to those who can pay for it. It has to be supplied to EVERYONE, that's why they're called necessities. Do you think medical service does not qualify as a "necessity?" Just because you don't have money, do you not have the right to be treated, or the right to live? (I'm not referring to you here, per se, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you're filthy rich!!!)
By the way, even if you can afford insurance do realize you won't be eligible for insurance because you've been diagnosed of a disease? Hmm. Interesting, isn't it? (Again, it's just a figure of speech. Obviously you'll never get diagnosed with anything throughout the next 50~60 some years of your life. )

Try not paying your electricity bill for a while and see what happens

And I'm far from rich. I grew up in a very modest home with very basic insurance.

 

[Pleepl3us]

Look RogueUnicorn what ever it's not a dumb question. There have been plastic surgery complaints by democrats in this process. If you knew about the taxes they are trying to impose on cosmetics you wouldn't view my questtion as stupid. Also I mean seriously, what have I done to you do be called a dumb ass with one neuron?,jesus So HOW OLD ARE YOU

--70% of premeds quit the process/are weeded out in college
--Of those remaining, roughly 10% of those will actually have the balls to take the MCAT and apply
--Of those crazy enough to continue a handful will be accepted
--Of those who enter med school roughly 5-10% OF ALL MED STUDENTS have the board scores to apply for any pathway leading to plastics
--Then you better hope your butt kissing skills and work ethic land you a good LOR and clerkship grades
--...............................

Understand that the cynical attitude heading your way (and to all pre-meds) who bring up topics like this come from people who are far enough along who understand far more than you and roll their eyes at how naive your question comes across.

It's basically like an 8th grader worrying about the new NFL CBA because WHEN he gets there he is concerned about his rookie contract.

Best to focus your energy on more pertinent issues you can control at the level you are at.

 

[chronicidal]

Great post. People that argue that healthcare should be a right are usually naive and stuck in lala land.

Universal coverage is something that is a definite good in society. That doesn't make it a right. People throw around "rights" without really considering the ramifications of doing so.

What are the ramifications (political or philosophical) of making health a human right?

Saying "Health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now I personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and I am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But I have no more right to health care then I have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

Many basic human rights are "positive rights", or claims that oblige other parties to act upon you. These include military/police security, the right to counsel, basic education, social security, a minimum standard of living. It's not "ridiculous." It may be debatable that these positive rights may override the negative rights of others (e.g. doctors have the negative right not to provide any services to jerks...).

 

[Narmerguy]

Great post. People that argue that healthcare should be a right are usually naive and stuck in lala land.

Universal coverage is something that is a definite good in society. That doesn't make it a right. People throw around "rights" without really considering the ramifications of doing so.

Actually, you have to pay for water, electricity, gas, etc. Or they shut them off.

Saying "Health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now I personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and I am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But I have no more right to health care then I have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

I personally supported the bill (though think its just pushing the cost issue down the road, where it will explode).

Sure some people throw it around, but I think others unnecessarily elevate the term to the point that nothing practical can ever be a "right".

Whether or not it is a right, I think that one could argue that we should "resonably expect" our government to make basic affordable healthcare available to everyone. Indeed, we don't have a "right" to a police force, but what sane citizen would ever argue against the government funding one? Or what about funding a public education system? Or building infrastructure like roads, lights, and bridges?

We reasonably expect certain things out of our government, and healthcare is very much one of those things. Whether or not we have some divinely ordained right, or perhaps an inherently human right, to some service is an absurdly narrow viewpoint on whether or not the government should provide for such a service. When people say we have a "right" to something, is that what they mean? Or are they saying that, as citizens of the largest economy in the world--with not only some of the wealthiest individuals in the known world, but some of the largest income disparities to go along with it-- and as members of a democratic society that purports to stand for equality, protecting its citizens and providing for the common good, that we should not only reasonably expect an affordable access to basic health care, but be completely intolerant of any arrangement devoid of such access.

Maybe that's not what you call a "right".

When did this thread actually become about healthcare? What went wrong?

 

[luli]

I'm not sure it's relevant whether or not people think healthcare is a right or a privilege. Access to healthcare is a matter of public health and safety. Just as free education benefits society, not just the individual who becomes literate, being able to vaccinate the population or treat leprosy rather than having the streets lined with homeless lepers means that we all benefit. (Unless you enjoy the smell of gangrenous ulcers during your morning commute, in which case I'm sure you find all this very disappointing.)

 

[BA11]

Make sure you tell every AdCom this.

Thanks.

I've encountered more far more doctors who held that opinion than ones who didnt. The belief that quality medical care is not and should be guranteed by the government is the prevailing sentiment among medical professionals, generally because they know it will eventually lead to inferior care as is seen in Europe and potentially less compensation without reducing their workload. I'm sorry if this upsets you.

I absolutely would argue that it is a privalege if asked. Believe it or not, my concern is for the quality of the care, not my future paycheck. I don't want to enter into an industry on the decline simply because Washington buffoons decided that it was better to give 310 million people "meh" care than give 285 million people good care. The system is flawed, but the above is NOT the way to fix it.

 

[KindofBlue]

Actually, you have to pay for water, electricity, gas, etc. Or they shut them off.

Saying "Health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now I personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and I am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But I have no more right to health care then I have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

I personally supported the bill (though think its just pushing the cost issue down the road, where it will explode).

I know you have to pay for electricity and water. Perhaps you didn't know that they are provided at a much cheaper rate than it would have been if they were supplied by a private enterprise? The prices will sky rocket if the government didn't subsidize such commodities, as can be seen in examples in England.
Maybe you need to brush up on your economics or the social contract theory. I'm not arguing about the fiscal impact of the reform; no doubt the it is going to hit the budget deficit hard. But is it necessary? Yes.

Great post. People that argue that healthcare should be a right are usually naive and stuck in lala land.

Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean from a fiscal standpoint, yes, it probably is not easy to achieve (But more so because of lobbyists). But overall, is it really just a bunch of gibberish? No. There are plenty of democratic countries that have successfully implemented and are maintaining universal health care at a very affordable rate to all or most people.

 

[NickNaylor]

I know you have to pay for electricity and water. Perhaps you didn't know that they are provided at a much cheaper rate than it would have been if they were supplied by a private enterprise? The prices will sky rocket if the government didn't subsidize such commodities, as can be seen in examples in England.
Maybe you need to brush up on your economics or the social contract theory. I'm not arguing about the fiscal impact of the reform; no doubt the it is going to hit the budget deficit hard. But is it necessary? Yes.




Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean from a fiscal standpoint, yes, it probably is not easy to achieve (But more so because of lobbyists). But overall, is it really just a bunch of gibberish? No. There are plenty of democratic countries that have successfully implemented and are maintaining universal health care at a very affordable rate to all or most people.

You do know that subsidies are paid for in taxes, which everyone pays for, right?

...right?

So it's not free. If anything, costs could very well be higher due to added bloat by paying people and processes to collect taxes, enforce collection of those taxes, and distribute them to companies - things that wouldn't be necessary in an unsubsidized market.

 

[BA11]

3) Providing better health for three percent of the population (10 million people) seems like a worthy goal to me.

A worthy goal? Absolutely. A practical goal in the real world? No. The uninsured will be getting "better" healthcare only because they had none to start with. The 280+ million people with healthcare in this country now will suffer for it.

5) Tell us how the health care bill socializes the industry. It sets regulations on private insurers and mandates the purchase of private insurance for people who have the means to do so.

It's inherently flawed logic, it mandates the purchase of a private service. Que? If I don't want to pay for electricity or cable, I don't have to and won't face the risk of financial penalties for making that choice.

6) Health insurance is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. However, health and health care is a universal human right and health care is necessary for maintaining the general welfare of the country. The government provides or ensures many services not guaranteed by the constitution. The US is a welfare state; get used to it.

To suggest that the the downfall of our society will be uninsured citizens is beyond silly. I do not deny that we are becoming a welfare state however, and that fact is far more detrimental to our future than 20 million without medical insurance.

 

[BA11]

Perhaps you didn't know that they are provided at a much cheaper rate than it would have been if they were supplied by a private enterprise?

Seriously? Taxes dude. You pay for it in taxes, and our tax burden will almost certainly result in the average American paying EVEN MORE in the long run. The fact that most are too dense to realize they are still paying for it doesnt change the fact that they ARE paying for it.

 

[NickNaylor]

What are the ramifications (political or philosophical) of making health a human right?

How about just starting with the fact that the government would have the ability to compel you to do a job you don't want to do or, if you do actually want to become a physician, how to do that job? The government would have the ability to say all of these things in order to guarantee the right of healthcare (obviously most of these things likely wouldn't occur in the real world, but I have an issue with the government just having the ability to do these things):

"Oh, you want to do research in the basic sciences? Sorry, we need more physicians and your skill set is most ameanable to becoming a physician. You'll be starting medical school in August."

"Oh, you want to be a surgeon? Sorry, we need more family medicine physicians - you're only allowed to apply to family medicine residencies this year."

"Oh, you don't want to treat that patient that is non-compliant and refuses to make lifestyle changes necessary to their health? Sorry, if you refuse to treat him/her your license will be revoked."

"Oh, you wanted to treat 10 patients a day? Sorry, our population is much too large for that low of a volume - you need to increase your patient load to at least 30 patients a day."

I have a problem with the government being able to do any of those things. Hell, I have a problem with the government now having the power to unilaterally dictate the prices of all reimbursement for medical procedures that aren't paid for in cash.

This isn't the only argument that is compelling (in my opinion) against a right to healthcare, but it's what I find to be most important. So that I don't end up writing a ton, I'll stop there.

Politically, you are forcing the government to guarantee that it will pay for all this care. Healthcare costs WILL continue to increase. Even in countries where socialized, single-payer models are in place, healthcare costs continue to rise (though they admittedly rise at rates lower than in the US, but this only delays the inevitable). Politicians can deal with this increase in one of two ways: 1) raise taxes, or 2) cut the amount and quality of services. If #1 occurs too many times, that will lead to a ridiculous tax burden on the populace. If #2 occurs too many times, the quality of the provided healthcare may very well be worse than the quality provided now.

Again, I have no problem with universal healthcare (though I do have a problem with socialized medicine). I have no doubt that it's a positive good and something that is desirable for society. That doesn't mean that I think I'm entitled to it. Working to improve access to healthcare and guaranteeing a certain standard of healthcare at all costs are two very different things.

Many basic human rights are "positive rights", or claims that oblige other parties to act upon you. These include military/police security, the right to counsel, basic education, social security, a minimum standard of living. It's not "ridiculous." It may be debatable that these positive rights may override the negative rights of others (e.g. doctors have the negative right not to provide any services to jerks...).

None of these are rights when you look at that Constitution. There is no right to military/police security (though the government IS given the power to raise a military), a right to counsel (that right was created by the Supreme Court through interpretation of the fifth amendment), basic education, social security, or a minimum standard of living. Please point me to a clause in the Constitution that guarantees any of these things. inb4 general welfare clause

Now if the argument is whether or not these things are good and desirable, that's entirely different. All of those things are good things, and very few people would disagree with having them. That by no means makes them rights, which FORCES a competent government to provide them.

So yes, it is ridiculous. You're using the all-too-common fallacy of today's culture that argues that if something is desirable, beneficial, and/or good, then we have a right to have it. We have a right to internet access, to electricity, to cell phones, to birth control, and whatever other ridiculous things people want the government to pay for.

 

[NickNaylor]

Sure some people throw it around, but I think others unnecessarily elevate the term to the point that nothing practical can ever be a "right".

Whether or not it is a right, I think that one could argue that we should "resonably expect" our government to make basic affordable healthcare available to everyone. Indeed, we don't have a "right" to a police force, but what sane citizen would ever argue against the government funding one? Or what about funding a public education system? Or building infrastructure like roads, lights, and bridges?

We reasonably expect certain things out of our government, and healthcare is very much one of those things. Whether or not we have some divinely ordained right, or perhaps an inherently human right, to some service is an absurdly narrow viewpoint on whether or not the government should provide for such a service. When people say we have a "right" to something, is that what they mean? Or are they saying that, as citizens of the largest economy in the world--with not only some of the wealthiest individuals in the known world, but some of the largest income disparities to go along with it-- and as members of a democratic society that purports to stand for equality, protecting its citizens and providing for the common good, that we should not only reasonably expect an affordable access to basic health care, but be completely intolerant of any arrangement devoid of such access.

Maybe that's not what you call a "right".

When did this thread actually become about healthcare? What went wrong?

That's your problem there: many people (myself included) would disagree with the idea that the government is the entity that should be providing that service. That doesn't make it any less important - hell, even necessary - to provide the service. But I absolutely don't agree that the government is the authority that should provide it.

 

[FSUseminoleEM1]

Sigh...no hope for the broke folks. Humanity is dead.

 

[JimmyChitwood]

Healthcare is absolutely a privilege. I stated that in my interviews, as well. I also agree with the above poster who claimed that a good majority of physicians share that view. Maybe not in academia, but in private practice it's a landslide.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd be willing to bet a good number of you wide-eyed pre-meds that want to save the world (nothing wrong with that, I might add) will change your mind about a lot of things after 20 years as a doctor, taxpayer, etc.

 

[RNwantDO]

Personally, I refer to it as Obamacare; it was his pet policy that he ran on last election. I do not mean it in a derogatory term, but as a catchall for the upcoming health care reform. However, I can see how it could be annoying, as it is one of those cute press nicknames/derogatory political names.

(Just stating the obvious)
A right is something a person is born with, and no person or entity is entitled to take it away from you. Healthcare is more an entitlement afforded by your government. Personally, I view it as a worthwhile entitlement, but it does mandate personal responsibility, and that is in direct conflict with an entitlement.

 

[JimmyChitwood]

Have you guys ever been to the DMV? Paid taxes? Seen how much medicaid/medicare fraud amounts to in a year? Government-run programs are notoriously inefficient. Do you seriously want them to take over healthcare?

 

[NickNaylor]

Sigh...no hope for the broke folks. Humanity is dead.

No hope for that Medicare/Medicaid.

 

[ywlke]

Their costs are absorbed by the system and passed onto everyone else.

This. Why don't those so opposed to mandatory healthcare insurance advocate for a repeal of EMTALA?

4) Tell us why the new system will lead to subpar care. I don't think it will.

however this can be done WITHOUT socializing the industry and sacrificing the quality of care

Why is socializing the industry being equated to sacrificing quality of care? Regardless of whether or not the new law socializes healthcare, is socialized healthcare that bad? Do citizens in countries with socialized healthcare think American healthcare is better? According to who?

I've encountered more far more doctors who held that opinion than ones who didnt. The belief that quality medical care is not and should be guranteed by the government is the prevailing sentiment among medical professionals, generally because they know it will eventually lead to inferior care as is seen in Europe and potentially less compensation without reducing their workload. I'm sorry if this upsets you.

Do Europeans think Americans get superior healthcare? Or is it just Americans opposed to healthcare reform that claim Europeans have inferior healthcare? Maybe I am misinformed, so citations would be appreciated.

 

[circulus vitios]

Based on my ability to predict the future,

 

[Gut Shot]

Healthcare is absolutely a privilege. I stated that in my interviews, as well. I also agree with the above poster who claimed that a good majority of physicians share that view. Maybe not in academia, but in private practice it's a landslide.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd be willing to bet a good number of you wide-eyed pre-meds that want to save the world (nothing wrong with that, I might add) will change your mind about a lot of things after 20 years as a doctor, taxpayer, etc.

As a private practice physician, who pays more in taxes than I earned in residency, I find your views a childish as the caricature you oppose.

The typical refrain of right vs. privilege represents a false choice that does nothing to further the discussion. What if health care is neither a right nor a privilege, but merely good policy?

 

[NickNaylor]

This. Why don't those so opposed to mandatory healthcare insurance advocate for a repeal of EMTALA?

Why is socializing the industry being equated to sacrificing quality of care? Regardless of whether or not the new law socializes healthcare, is socialized healthcare that bad? Do citizens in countries with socialized healthcare think American healthcare is better? According to who?

Do Europeans think Americans get superior healthcare? Or is it just Americans opposed to healthcare reform that claim Europeans have inferior healthcare? Maybe I am misinformed, so citations would be appreciated.

EMTALA is a form of regulation. It's designed to prevent hospitals from refusing care to patients who legitimately need care because of the potential costs or difficulty involved with their care. I'm not sure what that has to do with socialized medicine. Unfortunately it's been taken advantage of such that hospitals are forced to treat individuals that know that they can get free care by showing up to the ER if their condition is serious enough.

Also, I like that your primary focus is on what people think about the European and American systems. Nevermind all of the other considerations. Of course people WANT a system where they can just show up and get "free" care and don't want a system where you have to go to certain providers and actually *gasp* pay up front for your care. That says absolutely nothing about the quality of their systems or whether or not they're effective.

 

[Gut Shot]

Have you guys ever been to the DMV? Paid taxes? Seen how much medicaid/medicare fraud amounts to in a year? Government-run programs are notoriously inefficient.

I see you have never attempted to navigate the labyrinth of private insurance in this country. Observe:

One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total. The remaining 15 percent was attributed to public payers that are not saddled with the high cost of product design, medical underwriting and marketing, and that therefore spend a far smaller fraction of their total spending on administration.

Do you seriously want them to take over healthcare?

I also see you haven't noticed Politifact's 2010 Lie of the Year.

 

[NickNaylor]

As a private practice physician, who pays more in taxes than I earned in residency, I find your views a childish as the caricature you oppose.

The typical refrain of right vs. privilege represents a false choice that does nothing to further the discussion. What if health care is neither a right nor a privilege, but merely good policy?

It absolutely does further the discussion. If healthcare is a right, the government is obligated to provide care and the discussion stops there. If healthcare is a privilege then we have a little more leeway with what might be considered "good policy." If the people want to provide universal coverage/socialized care then they may do so, but the government isn't obligated from the start to provide that level of care. There is a difference.

 

[Gut Shot]

Unfortunately it's been taken advantage of such that hospitals are forced to treat individuals that know that they can get free care by showing up to the ER if their condition is serious enough.

If your condition is serious enough to warrant emergent stabilization under EMTALA, it's difficult to argue that you are taking advantage of the system. That would be like getting in a head-on collision in order to obtain an inhaler refill.

 

[NickNaylor]

If your condition is serious enough to warrant emergent stabilization under EMTALA, it's difficult to argue that you are taking advantage of the system. That would be like getting in a head-on collision in order to obtain an inhaler refill.

So you don't think that EMTALA is being abused and/or encourages people to not pay for care and instead wait to show up to the ER? Of course access to care is a significant issue, and we might argue that improved access would decrease the number of people that use ERs as PCPs, but what if people didn't have this "safety net" to rely on to begin with?

 

[ywlke]

Also, I like that your primary focus is on what people think about the European and American systems. Nevermind all of the other considerations. Of course people WANT a system where they can just show up and get "free" care and don't want a system where you have to go to certain providers and actually *gasp* pay up front for your care. That says absolutely nothing about the quality of their systems or whether or not they're effective.

I'm sorry that you read it that way. My primary focus wasn't meant to be on what people think about the European and American systems, but rather to point out that the quoted poster seemed to be using the comparison to oppose the healthcare law. But if someone is going to do that, then he/she should at least be fair about it.

 

[ywlke]

If your condition is serious enough to warrant emergent stabilization under EMTALA, it's difficult to argue that you are taking advantage of the system. That would be like getting in a head-on collision in order to obtain an inhaler refill.

I think the argument is that there are people who do not seek treatment for a minor condition which then develops into a more serious condition that EMTALA covers.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Because without Obama that abortion of a bill never gets passed.

i believe in the sanctity of bills from the moment they are conceived in a congressman's mind, and think aborting them is morally reprehensible

 

[TheUPSIDEdown]

Why are people attacking the OP? He simply asked a question.

Oh, my bad guys. Right, if you go into medicine it should be for the love of helping people only (family not included). You will spend $200k + and 11+ years of your life just to help other people, but it'll still be ok if you cant make a nice living from it. You know what? I had a guy in one of my undergrad classes tell me he would still do the medicine if he only made 50k/year. You guys would love him.

 

[vin5cent0]

Yeah thats right. I dont think too many people could go through 14-16 years of scientific training for the purpose of helping people if that wasn't exactly their intention in the first place. I also like money... So yeah op wants to go into medicine for the science, helping people, and a good living. I think it;s so stupid when people overreact over my avatar. So don't analyze my intentions just answer the question.

I think people are more reacting to the fact that you're worried about plastics salaries when you aren't even a medical student Come back in 10 years and ask this question, people might take you a little more seriously.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

actually, you have to pay for water, electricity, gas, etc. Or they shut them off.

Saying "health care is a right" is a ridiculous statement. A basic human right that requires others to labor on your behalf? So every gov't that doesn't provide universal coverage is violating human rights? Health care is a service provided to you, not a right you have. Now i personally believe that our society is better served by providing a system in which everyone is ensured a basic level of healthcare, and i am willing to pay into said system if it is well designed, efficient, and treats doctors fairly. Just like its beneficial for society to pay taxes to fund a police system, a judicial system, and a common defense. But i have no more right to health care then i have a right to have a policeman defend my property from burglary.

I personally supported the bill (though think its just pushing the cost issue down the road, where it will explode).

if i was asked this i would absolutely argue that it's a privilege.

+1