PLZE READ!!!! "Obama's Health Reform is actually a good thing...."

[fried rice]

I completely, agree. I'm sure we'll still be able to fulfill our dreams and goals. And I HATE bureaucracies. I don't think the government should interfere too much. It's just a lot of people are turning from medicine, and are afraid because of this situation. We have to make the best of it. I don't think it'll be as bad as we think. I do stand behind this, but in his speeches, it doesn't seem asthough the government will be standing over "shoulders", or take full pay checks. I guess we just have to wait and see. But we honestly need something.

You realize the absurd conflict this creates with your support of government-sponsored healthcare, correct?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ephemeralsun]

When Obama mentioned the red pill/blue pill did anyone else think, "Are we in the matrix?"

 

[pakola]

Lately I've been hearing alot about how this new health reform is going to lower the income of physicians, and all in the health industry. But people lets stop and think about what it's REALLY designed to do. There are many threads about this topic. This reform is to HELP our Country, and Economy at the same time. Yes, it may put a dent in our pockets in the future, but not one that's going to hurt our pockets as we all think. Obama, AARP, doctors, hospital administrators, and many others, have come to realize that this health care situation is a SERIOUS contributor to our failing economy. I can imagine many of the people, physicains... etc., that endorse Obama and his reform, are aware that they may lose some income. It's a chain reaction, if we have anymore industries fail such as the Auto, and Aviation industry once has, NO ONW will have health care. Then we'd Really see our pockets start to diminish. But realize it's what we need. If But on the other hand, health care will be available to MILLIONS of other people that is wasn't before. That will give physicians the opportunity to make up for the reduction, and possibly make EVEN more than before. If you are really persuing medicine for the right reasons, you would jump onboard as well. If you're in it completely for the money, then you may be in the wrong field. We have chosen this field to HELP people, and yes to live comfortably, of course. But if you have, or have had someone that you're truely close to, pass away, or suffer because the, simply, can afford health care, or be rejected care because of their lack of insurance, then you could understand. We'll all make very, very nice salaries, but we will truely be doing our part 150% when it comes to helping people. We need this not only for our economy, but also for the millions of us, U.S. citizens, that can't afford proper health care. Some people may fear that it would put the Medical industry into the same boat the aviation industry was in around this time last year, but it's not going to happen. PRICES WILL NOT LOWER THAT MUCH. Do your research, know the details, and tweeks before passing judgement.


It's really what we need to completely revive our struggling economy.

Now....ready.....set.....debate.......

Thank you! I'm so sick of everyone whining about their salaries going down in the future. It seems like many on this site are very progressive in other respects but the minute an idea like this gets proposed, they freak out and attack it as being socialist. They throw around extreme examples, and talk about how society will cease to exist as we know it. And then, they tell people like us we're naive. Well, I'm just glad that these reforms will pass and none of these people will have any say in the matter. Long live the US, where the ignorance of the few doesn't jeopordize everyone.

 

[niranjan162]

This healthcare reform bill is important as it'll affect everyone in this forum, potentially. It may seem pointless to some people since words in here might never escape the microcosm of SDN, but this discussion is not about the pointlessness of discussion, it's about the reform bill itself.

If you want to argue about importance and meaning, you should make another thread and then laugh at other people who come here to express their opinions and say how pointless their opinions are. And then you should point out how pointless it is to make a thread about how pointless it is to argue about healthcare reform.

If I'm not clear, by making a post "deriding" how pointless something is, is just as pointless as the post that discusses the pointless issue. If you meant to be constructive you should have made constructive comments.

---

With that said, I agree with you, ATB pre med. This healthcare reform bill is a positive thing. However, your knowledge of the subject and your expression of its positivity makes you appear naive. Everyone should watch Obama's healthcare reform statement.

The healthcare reform bill is complex and it's goal is to increase health coverage, reduce inefficiencies, and decrease costs while increasing our ability to pay for it.

This will not replace private health insurance for people that are happy it.
It'll provide health insurance for people who don't have it.
It'll have laws enforcing health insurance coverage in circumstances where people would lose it. (ie. changing jobs)
It'll limit the ability of health insurance companies to manipulate premiums and costs of health insurance
It'll reduce inefficiencies by centralizing information in computer systems.
It'll reduce redundancies in treatment and overuse of tests in medicaid and healthcare. (we're in debt because of these systems)
Money will come from taxes on people who make more than 250,000
It will not reduce medicare benefits, it'll change them to make them more efficient. (ie. decrease waste)

Of course, this is all dependent on the bill itself and it's too early to say if any of this will come through. In my opinion, it's important that people realize how inefficient and wasteful healthcare is. It's important that people know that a large amount of healthcare is funneled to health insurance companies who at the same time try to reduce "their" costs by limiting access to medicine thereby increasing profit. Of course that doesn't matter if you're fabulously rich with superb coverage.

And I think the focus on the salary part is a bit shallow. I don't understand the circumstances of anyones upbringing and why people on SDN feel entitled to X amount of dollars after becoming a doctor, hence my perception may be limited. I do know that medical school is tough and residency almost as difficult if not worse. I know that becoming a doctor can be overwhelming and impossible at times.

But people have dealt with worse in their lives and somehow they don't feel entitled to anything. Isn't that a bit odd that people who lose their whole family to gang fights and are orphaned at an early age feel like they deserve nothing when they have struggled through so much more in life than any of us; we whose greatest struggle may just be getting into, or through medical school/residency? Of course this is a grand generalization and my opinion. But I think it'll put things into perspective.

I applaud your efforts, ATB pre med. You have my best wishes in your quest to get into medical school.

ok lets address your points (sorry this might be long):
This will not replace private health insurance for people that are happy it.

Since the public option will cost less, according to number being thrown around by the administration the reimbursements will be 10% above medicare. Now medicare already sets the rates for private insurance, however theyre not as low as medicare can sometimes be under even cost of procedure let alone drs fees.

So why would people pay more for their private insurance when they can pay less. This will result in a two tiered system, the rich will still get preferential treatment and those in the public plan will encounter longer wait times or "conveyor belt" medicine at best.

It'll provide health insurance for people who don't have it.

Correct, too bad we can afford medicare right not, i wonder how bad the system will be when we add millions of people to it. Not to mention the overflow of people who will abuse it because theyre not paying for it directly.

It'll have laws enforcing health insurance coverage in circumstances where people would lose it.

They tried this in massachusetts, we have a real life example of this in the U.S. I can tell you that massachusetts gave up on it, had to borrow lots of federal money to keep it afloat, and the entire state is running in the red.

It'll limit the ability of health insurance companies to manipulate premiums and costs of health insurance

Why cant they do this now? Aside from the fact that insurance companies lobby politicians who run the government.

It'll reduce inefficiencies by centralizing information in computer systems.

I think this is a good idea, but there are problems associated with it and I think the government is too inept to handle this. What they should do is provide incentive for this to happen. Alot of hospitals already have electronic records systems in them. They should provide monetary incentives to completely convert to EMR.

However for small businesses and practices this will be a large expense thus we need to more incentives for this. Not to mention the IT people that will be required to keep these systems up and running.

Adding EMR will be expensive and I have heard no way in which the government plans to roll the out. If you know what their plan for this is please explain.

It'll reduce redundancies in treatment and overuse of tests in medicaid and healthcare. (we're in debt because of these systems)

Sounds like youre talking about defensive medicine. This can be curbed with proper federaly incentivized torte reform. This will keep billions from going into the hands of lawyers and malpractice insurance and into treating patients.

However, Obama being a lawyer and heavily funded by trial lawyers has already said he is against torte reform.

Im glad that you realize that medicare/caid are sinking ships, however adding more people to the system only helps the ship sink faster.

Money will come from taxes on people who make more than 250,000
It will not reduce medicare benefits, it'll change them to make them more efficient. (ie. decrease waste)

Countries with lower populations who have government run healthcare charge EVERYONE more taxes. Simply taxing the rich will not bring in enough money to pay for everything.

As a doctor you will be getting it at both ends. your reimbursements will go down and your taxes will go up. As a private practice doctor, you may make 350k from your practice, but then you have to pay your overhead and your take home is alot less.

When people make the argument that "its ok you will make more money cuz you will have more patients"

this lowers quality and this is working more for the same amount!

Your benefits WILL GO DOWN. Every country with government healthcare (which pay higher taxes) ration the care people get. Its unavoidable and it will happen here once a public option is initiated.

Taxing the rich wont even work anymore because most of them are government employees (bailout joke).

Doctors salaries is important, as are all other aspects. We all need jobs, how is wanting to pay our bills and enjoy our years of hard work shallow?

You seem to realize that medicine is hard work. As a premed i had to work harder than most other majors. Even getting into medicine is more difficult than your average job.

Just like becoming a rock star is really difficult. Its difficult to be a doctor. I know what youre thinking "Wait!!! its so much harder to become a famous rockstar than a doctor!." And you would be right. Thats why they make 10s of millions of dollars while doctors dont. However doctors make more money because it takes years of training more than working a burger king. Get it? Athletes make millions because they do things that other people cant, nobody thinks they should take a pay cut to save the economy though.

Also its disgusting to me comparing a travesty like having your family murdered to trying to get a job.

 

[niranjan162]

When Obama mentioned the red pill/blue pill did anyone else think, "Are we in the matrix?"

its eeerily similar.

 

[fried rice]

Thank you! I'm so sick of everyone whining about their salaries going down in the future. It seems like many on this site are very progressive in other respects but the minute an idea like this gets proposed, they freak out and attack it as being socialist. They throw around extreme examples, and talk about how society will cease to exist as we know it. And then, they tell people like us we're naive. Well, I'm just glad that these reforms will pass and none of these people will have any say in the matter. Long live the US, where the ignorance of the few doesn't jeopordize everyone.

Yet you have no qualms with accepting a decline in the compensation that you don't yet receive? It's a two way street, my friend. If it is absurd that people are complaining about diminished future salaries, it must be equally absurd that people are eager to accept diminished future salaries. We pre-meds lack perspective in the personal impact of this matter.

Government-sponsored healthcare is in every sense of the term socialist. Here's the definition of socialism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Advocating government ownership and administration of the means of performing and distributing the service of healthcare is essentially what's involved here. It should only be a problem for a proponent if you find something inherently wrong with a policy being socialist in nature.

 

[Loveline]

man those canadians sure are hardcore socialists...and british, french, sweedish, norwegian etc.

 

[niranjan162]

man those canadians sure are hardcore socialists...and british, french, sweedish, norwegian etc.

good thing our government doesnt own the auto industry, banking industry, and insurance industry..... o wait

 

[TexasFight]

Yet you have no qualms with accepting a decline in the compensation that you don't yet receive? It's a two way street, my friend. If it is absurd that people are complaining about diminished future salaries, it must be equally absurd that people are eager to accept diminished future salaries. We pre-meds lack perspective in the personal impact of this matter.

Government-sponsored healthcare is in every sense of the term socialist. Here's the definition of socialism:



Advocating government ownership and administration of the means of performing and distributing the service of healthcare is essentially what's involved here. It should only be a problem for a proponent if you find something inherently wrong with a policy being socialist in nature.

 

[ephemeralsun]

ok lets address your points (sorry this might be long):
This will not replace private health insurance for people that are happy it.

Since the public option will cost less, according to number being thrown around by the administration the reimbursements will be 10% above medicare. Now medicare already sets the rates for private insurance, however theyre not as low as medicare can sometimes be under even cost of procedure let alone drs fees.

So why would people pay more for their private insurance when they can pay less. This will result in a two tiered system, the rich will still get preferential treatment and those in the public plan will encounter longer wait times or "conveyor belt" medicine at best.

It'll provide health insurance for people who don't have it.

Correct, too bad we can afford medicare right not, i wonder how bad the system will be when we add millions of people to it. Not to mention the overflow of people who will abuse it because theyre not paying for it directly.

It'll have laws enforcing health insurance coverage in circumstances where people would lose it.

They tried this in massachusetts, we have a real life example of this in the U.S. I can tell you that massachusetts gave up on it, had to borrow lots of federal money to keep it afloat, and the entire state is running in the red.

It'll limit the ability of health insurance companies to manipulate premiums and costs of health insurance

Why cant they do this now? Aside from the fact that insurance companies lobby politicians who run the government.

It'll reduce inefficiencies by centralizing information in computer systems.

I think this is a good idea, but there are problems associated with it and I think the government is too inept to handle this. What they should do is provide incentive for this to happen. Alot of hospitals already have electronic records systems in them. They should provide monetary incentives to completely convert to EMR.

However for small businesses and practices this will be a large expense thus we need to more incentives for this. Not to mention the IT people that will be required to keep these systems up and running.

Adding EMR will be expensive and I have heard no way in which the government plans to roll the out. If you know what their plan for this is please explain.

It'll reduce redundancies in treatment and overuse of tests in medicaid and healthcare. (we're in debt because of these systems)

Sounds like youre talking about defensive medicine. This can be curbed with proper federaly incentivized torte reform. This will keep billions from going into the hands of lawyers and malpractice insurance and into treating patients.

However, Obama being a lawyer and heavily funded by trial lawyers has already said he is against torte reform.

Im glad that you realize that medicare/caid are sinking ships, however adding more people to the system only helps the ship sink faster.

Money will come from taxes on people who make more than 250,000
It will not reduce medicare benefits, it'll change them to make them more efficient. (ie. decrease waste)

Countries with lower populations who have government run healthcare charge EVERYONE more taxes. Simply taxing the rich will not bring in enough money to pay for everything.

As a doctor you will be getting it at both ends. your reimbursements will go down and your taxes will go up. As a private practice doctor, you may make 350k from your practice, but then you have to pay your overhead and your take home is alot less.

When people make the argument that "its ok you will make more money cuz you will have more patients"

this lowers quality and this is working more for the same amount!

Your benefits WILL GO DOWN. Every country with government healthcare (which pay higher taxes) ration the care people get. Its unavoidable and it will happen here once a public option is initiated.

Taxing the rich wont even work anymore because most of them are government employees (bailout joke).

Doctors salaries is important, as are all other aspects. We all need jobs, how is wanting to pay our bills and enjoy our years of hard work shallow?

You seem to realize that medicine is hard work. As a premed i had to work harder than most other majors. Even getting into medicine is more difficult than your average job.

Just like becoming a rock star is really difficult. Its difficult to be a doctor. I know what youre thinking "Wait!!! its so much harder to become a famous rockstar than a doctor!." And you would be right. Thats why they make 10s of millions of dollars while doctors dont. However doctors make more money because it takes years of training more than working a burger king. Get it? Athletes make millions because they do things that other people cant, nobody thinks they should take a pay cut to save the economy though.

Also its disgusting to me comparing a travesty like having your family murdered to trying to get a job.

I think your points are valid and I would say you are better versed than I in this topic.

I made those points to outline what the bill would achieve not necessarily how it'll achieve it. I think it is more complex and more involved than what we know. So this is all speculation as we can't assume anything until the bill comes out, if it is even approved.

I would like to see healthcare for everyone, but yes, it has to be practical and cost effective.

Just like becoming a rock star is really difficult. Its difficult to be a doctor. I know what youre thinking "Wait!!! its so much harder to become a famous rockstar than a doctor!."

Not true, I was thinking that luck plays an important role in being successful as a rock star.

Ie. There are two computer programmers who are equally talented and think of different ideas with their talents. However, only one is successful because people liked his idea better. Working in industries apart from medicine, I realized that some people are successful not because they work harder but because they are lucky.

Athletes make millions because they do things that other people cant

I would say that's debatable. Not to say that I or you can compete but that there might be people who are undiscovered but equally able to compete in sports.

Also its disgusting to me comparing a travesty like having your family murdered to trying to get a job.

Sorry, I should have used a more PC example. But please keep in mind that it's disgusting to me that people would complain about salary cuts when people all around the world have nothing and are paid nothing.

 

[niranjan162]

I think your points are valid and I would say you are better versed than I in this topic.

I made those points to outline what the bill would achieve not necessarily how it'll achieve it. I think it is more complex and more involved than what we know. So this is all speculation as we can't assume anything until the bill comes out, if it is even approved.

I would like to see healthcare for everyone, but yes, it has to be practical and cost effective.

Just like becoming a rock star is really difficult. Its difficult to be a doctor. I know what youre thinking "Wait!!! its so much harder to become a famous rockstar than a doctor!."

Not true, I was thinking that luck plays an important role in being successful as a rock star.

Ie. There are two computer programmers who are equally talented and think of different ideas with their talents. However, only one is successful because people liked his idea better. Working in industries apart from medicine, I realized that some people are successful not because they work harder but because they are lucky.

Athletes make millions because they do things that other people cant

I would say that's debatable. Not to say that I or you can compete but that there might be people who are undiscovered but equally able to compete in sports.

Also its disgusting to me comparing a travesty like having your family murdered to trying to get a job.

Sorry, I should have used a more PC example. But please keep in mind that it's disgusting to me that people would complain about salary cuts when people all around the world have nothing and are paid nothing.

Well wanting to achieve things and being able to is the difference between making things happens and just getting the country into even more debt.

Im not trying to say the country is going to collapse or anything, but I do believe that we will face a period of hyper inflation as all this debt catches up to us. Obama had a ****ty situation coming into the white house with the financial disaster, but he is making the problem worse by trying to push his agenda, however he is an intelligent man and knows that this is the perfect time to do that. He also knows he is more likely to be re-elected to see the reform through, especially when he is of the select few that actually know what the plan is.

As for the rockstar thing, I meant difficult in the general sense. So factor in things like being lucky as part of the difficulty not necessarily just hard work.

As for the athlete thing it is debateable but, few have to talent to make it to the level of pro, even if your undiscovered and can be the best is part of the equation.

I agree that we have alot of oppoturnities and good fortune than many others. But that is a separate argument from wanting to be paid for hard labor. My family donates money to st judes research hospital, american leprosy foundation, and a few other charaties every month or so. I am glad we do these things, but I also want to be sure that the money i designate for these causes go towards them and not get chipped away by layers of bureaucracy. When my family had to tighten the belt the first things to go out of the budget was charity spending.

I would like healthcare for all too, but the problem is the government cant be leading the the issue, they should just be there to support it.

what people forget is that when doctors are fighting for their salary(not for a raise mind you, but just to keep it from dropping) they are not fighting against some kid in somalia, they are fighting against insurance companies, CEO's, and bureacracies. Given that most of us a altrusitic, I think the money would be much better spent in our hands than the CEO of bluecross blueshielf.

 

[Bacchus]

Oh BlueCross. You should see their building for IBX in Philadelphia. Its viewable from any direction.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

No debate necessary. You are an idiot.

What a naive and idiotic thread. I'm so tired of all these pre-meds who've never worked a day in their lives saying that "if you go into it for the money, it's the wrong profession" or some variant. As if it was this black and white. You've worked hard, you deserve to be compensated well. If physicians don't demand what they deserve, these socialist a-holes are going to stomp all over them. At least Mayo agrees.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

Thank you! I'm so sick of everyone whining about their salaries going down in the future. It seems like many on this site are very progressive in other respects but the minute an idea like this gets proposed, they freak out and attack it as being socialist. They throw around extreme examples, and talk about how society will cease to exist as we know it. And then, they tell people like us we're naive. Well, I'm just glad that these reforms will pass and none of these people will have any say in the matter. Long live the US, where the ignorance of the few doesn't jeopordize everyone.

People call you naive because you are naive. It's obvious they didn't teach you about the merits of capitalism during your liberal education. Let me summarize for you: 1. The reason the US is the greatest nation in the world is because of capitalism. Period. 2. Accountability assures quality. Hand outs won't assure that the US "lives long." You will probably figure this out when you venture out into the real world. 3. This plan is "socialist" in every sense of the word. We don't mean it derogatorily, we mean it objectively. We use this word because it is the most effective adjective as it describes the plan most accurately. Don't blame us if the S-word has negative historical connotations. 4. There are plenty of well-functioning socialist states where the government will gladly take 80% of your income and "re-distribute" it for you. Why corrupt the last bastion of free economy and turn it into what's already there? Put your money where your mouth is and move to Sweden/Denmark, etc. Don't ruin it for the Americans who know better.

Of course, we need to fix our healthcare problems. What you and your naive brethren fail to understand is that we can fix these problems without slashing doctors' incomes. This is perhaps the least imaginative, least effective, most beurocraticly dysfunctional and socialist idea one could imagine. You'll see, the quality of care will decline dramatically. Ultimately nobody will be served any better and we'll all be making less money to boot. Yet, for some reason, you're all aboard. You're so eager to provide free healthcare to everyone and save the world that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You, and Obama.

 

[ephemeralsun]

what people forget is that when doctors are fighting for their salary(not for a raise mind you, but just to keep it from dropping) they are not fighting against some kid in somalia, they are fighting against insurance companies, CEO's, and bureacracies. Given that most of us a altrusitic, I think the money would be much better spent in our hands than the CEO of bluecross blueshielf.

I think that's a very enlightened view and I see the merit of what you're saying. However, I'm a bit more realistic as I believe that the majority of doctors will not think that way as noble as it may be.

Some people in this thread who judge and degrade other people will attest to that. Though I can't attest to their desires I do think they are doing it for the money. And working as much as I have outside of college I have seen incredible acts of selfishness; human nature is not pretty.

Lastly, hard work does not qualify high compensation.

 

[DaTruMD]

ATB Pre Med, if you want us to take you more seriously, please take the time to read what you write and not contradict yourself. Your argument is a joke simply because your logic fails.

You do know that there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, right? Oh, and let me give you a hint - it's not about physicians' salaries going down. Patients can suffer from it too.

Did I mention Obama is supporting a bill that isn't even finalized yet? How can we support something we don't know?

All I'm trying to say is that don't be so judgmental if you don't know enough about it.

 

[spyderracing32]

The healthcare reform bill is complex and it's goal is to increase health coverage, reduce inefficiencies, and decrease costs while increasing our ability to pay for it.

It'll reduce inefficiencies by centralizing information in computer systems.
It'll reduce redundancies in treatment and overuse of tests in medicaid and healthcare. (we're in debt because of these systems)

Everything in bold above will not happen unless tort reform is pushed through. Doctors will continue to cover themselves with unnecessary tests until the risk of losing their livelihood for missing something goes away. Obama's not offering universal malpractice insurance here...

 

[Parts Unknown]

So why would people pay more for their private insurance when they can pay less

Larger provider network, access to specific preferred physician(s), better drug coverage, lower copays, lower deductibles, larger palette of covered procedures, shorter waiting times for appointments and procedures, ability to self-refer...

 

[niranjan162]

Larger provider network, access to specific preferred physician(s), better drug coverage, lower copays, lower deductibles, larger palette of covered procedures, shorter waiting times for appointments and procedures, ability to self-refer...

fair enough, but given US society's priorities (in which healthcare is not very high), do you not agree that most people will just opt for the cheaper alternative?

In which case, all those things you describe will be available to those who pay the high premium of private doctors.

So while more people will get access, it will be to lesser quality care (as wait times will increase to accommodate more people and doctors try to go through patients even faster to make up for lower reimbursements) and those who can afford will probably get better care.

I think we actually might see more stratification in healthcare as the system gets more stressed by the additional people that would be added.

 

[wjdghks]

Can't believe the number of conservatards on this forum. Oh no, THE GOVERNMENT!!! SOCIALISM!!!! get a hold of yourselves.
You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

To the poster who thinks the US is the best country in the world, get back in touch with reality. A nation where the majority of people are obese, 50% of the population believe in creationism, a nation that has one of the highest violent crime rates out of all the first world nations is the best nation in the world? Keep on living in your little bubble my ignorant american friend.

 

[niranjan162]

I think that's a very enlightened view and I see the merit of what you're saying. However, I'm a bit more realistic as I believe that the majority of doctors will not think that way as noble as it may be.

Some people in this thread who judge and degrade other people will attest to that. Though I can't attest to their desires I do think they are doing it for the money. And working as much as I have outside of college I have seen incredible acts of selfishness; human nature is not pretty.

Lastly, hard work does not qualify high compensation.

I had a whole big post written out but it got lost so im just gonna say.

That realistically, as you said, people factor in money when they decide to go into medicine.

So by decreasing payments to physicians you are actually hurting patients

This happens because less people will want to enter medicine. Meaning less doctors, so even if you have a health coverage for everyone if there are no doctors to see them it wont matter.

Now the people who do still want to be doctors will be lower quality applicants.

These two situations combined result in patients being seen faster and more rushed. This leads to mis-communications or even no communication if you cant get an appointment etc. things get missed or overlooked and the patients suffer. Even if they dont suffer medically their interaction with doctors will be quite poor.

I never said working hard = higher compensation

I said specialized skill set = higher compensation

Whether you have to work hard to get there or not is irrelevant in the context of why the high salaries are justified. You cant just walk straight out of undergrad and do surgery, this is why these people are paid more. The fact that you have to work hard to get to that level is what will prevent people from doing it if the pay out isnt worth it.

Edit: also the piddly amount of money gained by cutting physician salaries wont even put a dent in healthcare costs. Let alone leave anything left over for expanding access. So as for the reasons stated above it only further degrades the profession.

 

[niranjan162]

Can't believe the number of conservatards on this forum. Oh no, THE GOVERNMENT!!! SOCIALISM!!!! get a hold of yourselves.
You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

To the poster who thinks the US is the best country in the world, get back in touch with reality. A nation where the majority of people are obese, 50% of the population believe in creationism, a nation that has one of the highest violent crime rates out of all the first world nations is the best nation in the world? Keep on living in your little bubble my ignorant american friend.

totally right dude we should stop trying to save those damn premies so our stats can go up.

 

[fried rice]

Can't believe the number of conservatards on this forum. Oh no, THE GOVERNMENT!!! SOCIALISM!!!! get a hold of yourselves.
You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

To the poster who thinks the US is the best country in the world, get back in touch with reality. A nation where the majority of people are obese, 50% of the population believe in creationism, a nation that has one of the highest violent crime rates out of all the first world nations is the best nation in the world? Keep on living in your little bubble my ignorant american friend.

It is apparent that the current system is severely flawed, and it is also apparent that there is already a significant level of government intervention in the form of EMTALA and Medicare/aid, however I find that you can't compare the results of other countries' systems to the results of our system without taking into account the societal differences. Results can be based on patient satisfaction and/or statistical analysis, however satisfaction depends on expectations and statistical analysis is skewed by things like general eating habits, genetic heterogeneity and physical activity. You attempted to demonstrate some major differences in your post, and you've certainly got a point - do you not see how the tendency for obesity and thus associated complications would impact the performance of the healthcare system?

 

[ephemeralsun]

I had a whole big post written out but it got lost so im just gonna say.

That realistically, as you said, people factor in money when they decide to go into medicine.

So by decreasing payments to physicians you are actually hurting patients

This happens because less people will want to enter medicine. Meaning less doctors, so even if you have a health coverage for everyone if there are no doctors to see them it wont matter.

Now the people who do still want to be doctors will be lower quality applicants.

These two situations combined result in patients being seen faster and more rushed. This leads to mis-communications or even no communication if you cant get an appointment etc. things get missed or overlooked and the patients suffer. Even if they dont suffer medically their interaction with doctors will be quite poor.

I never said working hard = higher compensation

I said specialized skill set = higher compensation

Whether you have to work hard to get there or not is irrelevant in the context of why the high salaries are justified. You cant just walk straight out of undergrad and do surgery, this is why these people are paid more. The fact that you have to work hard to get to that level is what will prevent people from doing it if the pay out isnt worth it.

Edit: also the piddly amount of money gained by cutting physician salaries wont even put a dent in healthcare costs. Let alone leave anything left over for expanding access. So as for the reasons stated above it only further degrades the profession.

Considering how many applicants there are to how many matriculants, I don't think we'll have less doctors.

However, I see where you're going with the lower quality doctor and true as it may be, we have to consider the other side of the coin.

What about the really good doctors who don't give a crap about people but are really good surgeons, per se? We have people in health care who don't care about health care. But we know that genuine concern actually contributes to health. Maybe, having less qualified doctors, but doctors who care more will actually reduce malpractice for instance.

Of course this is speculation and we wont know until it happens. I think the best way to look at it is to look at the examples that have succeeded in enacting socialists systems where doctors have less pay. It is in a different context so maybe not relative to the US... but still, we can always wonder.

I said specialized skill set = higher compensation

I share the same perception. I tried to phrase the "hard work = higher compensation" as a general statement because I didn't want to point fingers at anyone, but it got lumped into what I was saying to you. A matter a miscommunication.

 

[Kong Bu]

I REALLY don't like some of your attitudes towards the OP. Being as disrespectful and rude by saying "you are an idiot" or the like isn't contributing whatsoever to any discussion. The OP has certain feelings and sentiments towards the reform bill and there are plenty of others who agree with him (including doctors around the US alike). If you don't agree with what he says, then it's better to offer your views and arguments than be ridiculous and immature. SDN is a board for students who are in the range of 18-27+. If we could please act that way....

In any case, this reform bill or not, I still want to be a doctor. I also believe that this reform bill will weed out those who have true passions in the field of medicine against those who don't have what it takes.

So I do expect to see a drop in the percentage of people who desire to pursue medicine if this reform bills pass. Even if we have less people going to be doctors, at least the remaining ones will most likely have the heart to be truly passionate about what they're going into. Plus, this will make many pre-med/med students think more about their decision to choose this path, so we won't see so many kids dreaming about pre-med but ending up changing majors.

Just a thought and applauds to you, ATB Pre Med.

 

[Parts Unknown]

fair enough, but given US society's priorities (in which healthcare is not very high), do you not agree that most people will just opt for the cheaper alternative?

How many people opt for it would depend primarily on 1. how much cheaper it is, and 2. how different the benefits are from the competing private options. If cost were the only consideration in making purchases, Yugo would be the world's dominant car company.

Also consider the various restrictions that have been floated on who would qualify for the public option. Its earliest incarnation was a free-for-all, but to make it more politically palatable, entry may be limited based on employment and/or existing coverage and/or income level.

In another thread I suggested you read this PNHP article which bemoans how toothless the public option is (from the perspective of single payer advocates, that is). The currently debated notion of a public option originated from a man named Jacob Hacker in 2001, while he was still in graduate school. The Lewin Group analyzed his methods and estimated that 113 million (46% of the non-elderly) would enroll in an open public option run through Medicare's infrastructure, and that the uninsured would drop to 5 million.

Now, compare that figure to what is coming out of the CBO with the public option proposals as they have thus far been written: the so-called tri-committee bill is projected to enroll 10 million, and the Senate HELP bill would not be able to set premiums lower than the private options.

Feel better?

 

[Denver89]

Problems with proposed bills being discussed right now..

1. What is the goal of Universal health care? to cover everyone right? Well so far the house has only been able to come up with a bill that covers 2/3 of the uninsured, ya that sounds pretty good right? No. It taxes the **** out of the wealthy and REDISTRIBUTES wealth, which is socialism in its purist form. I believe in competition, capitalism, and hard work. Obama is trying to turn the greatest country in the world into a socialized ****hole.

OH ya.. i almost forgot, that plan costs 1.2 TRILLION DOLLORS, im not even sure thats a real number..

2. Heres another problem (or lack there of).. Where are these people who claim that there are 50 million uninsured? IT'S JUST NOT TRUE!

lets break it down...

10-15 million = ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (**** them)
20-25 million = can afford insurance and choose not to
5-8 million = Young students who are just becoming self sufficient and will soon be covered after entering the work force.

so that leaves between 8-10 million who are truely in need of health coverage..

3. How do we fix this??

- It starts with TORT REFORM... everyone knows this but chooses to ignore it because of those scary lawyers

- Another aspect of health care that is often overlooked is the standardization of insurance paperwork, and all that bs.. If we can come up with a way to standardize this mess of a system then we might just be able to (a) see more patients who lack coverage (b) Stop wasting time with useless paper work and unneeded procedures.

 

[ziggyd0c]

people in this country are eager to jump on the socialized healthcare bandwagon because they're LAZY. "oh boy! i can absolve myself of my responsibility and give it to the government!!" like others have said, i believe in capitalism and hard work. if you work hard and are skilled, you should be compensated well (and not have it taken away from you in taxes).

there are plenty of middle-class, working americans who are having trouble paying for healthcare. these people deserve to see a change. however, the change would be much easier if it weren't for the people who take EVERYTHING from the government and provide NOTHING (i.e., sit at home waiting for their welfare check to come). without that huge drain on the economy it would be a lot easier to provide good healthcare for everyone, IMO.

disclaimer: i have no idea how to solve this problem.

 

[fried rice]

people in this country are eager to jump on the socialized healthcare bandwagon because they're LAZY. "oh boy! i can absolve myself of my responsibility and give it to the government!!" like others have said, i believe in capitalism and hard work. if you work hard and are skilled, you should be compensated well (and not have it taken away from you in taxes).

there are plenty of middle-class, working americans who are having trouble paying for healthcare. these people deserve to see a change. however, the change would be much easier if it weren't for the people who take EVERYTHING from the government and provide NOTHING (i.e., sit at home waiting for their welfare check to come). without that huge drain on the economy it would be a lot easier to provide good healthcare for everyone, IMO.

disclaimer: i have no idea how to solve this problem.

I don't know how much different the situation would be from the way it is now, considering EMTALA.

 

[jkmph]

2. Heres another problem (or lack there of).. Where are these people who claim that there are 50 million uninsured? IT'S JUST NOT TRUE!

lets break it down...

10-15 million = ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (**** them)
20-25 million = can afford insurance and choose not to
5-8 million = Young students who are just becoming self sufficient and will soon be covered after entering the work force.

so that leaves between 8-10 million who are truely in need of health coverage..

You've obviously never taken a course in healthcare policy or read any literature on health coverage disparities in the US. It's an empirical fact that north of 50 million people are uninsured (we'll ignore underinsured) in this country. To dispute this verifiable truth undercuts both your other arguments and any substance with which you wish to continue debating.

 

[Kaustikos]

fair enough, but given US society's priorities (in which healthcare is not very high), do you not agree that most people will just opt for the cheaper alternative?

In which case, all those things you describe will be available to those who pay the high premium of private doctors.

So while more people will get access, it will be to lesser quality care (as wait times will increase to accommodate more people and doctors try to go through patients even faster to make up for lower reimbursements) and those who can afford will probably get better care.

I think we actually might see more stratification in healthcare as the system gets more stressed by the additional people that would be added.

You would think. But beggers ARE choosers in this society. People are never satisfied with what's given to them for a reduced price.

Can't believe the number of conservatards on this forum. Oh no, THE GOVERNMENT!!! SOCIALISM!!!! get a hold of yourselves.
You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

To the poster who thinks the US is the best country in the world, get back in touch with reality. A nation where the majority of people are obese, 50% of the population believe in creationism, a nation that has one of the highest violent crime rates out of all the first world nations is the best nation in the world? Keep on living in your little bubble my ignorant american friend.

Here's the thing - the lifestyle we live here, in the US, is significantly different than outside in other countries. THAT has an effect on how "****ty" our coverage is.

 

[jkurtz02]

trading in one bureaucracy for another is not something i look forward too. The government will be just as concerned with cost containment as an insurance company if it has to take over.

I am not saying it is better to trade in one bureaucracy for another, my only point was that people who claim there isn't currently one are way off base.

As far as the electronic medical records go, if done correctly (i.e. a nation wide database which gives doctors access when they need to) would reduce repeat testing. Not because it is reducing defensive medicine (which I do believe is a huge issue), but because if a useless MRI was clean yesterday it is probably clean today so why run another. Right now if that MRI was run at Boca Community hospital on Monday and the patient went to Delray Medical center on Tuesday (~10 miles and 25 minutes apart) the doctors at Delray would be unaware of the results, but with a database like this they could get the results.

Lastly there are many systems in place that I think we should look at as models and maybe start taking some ideas from them. Israel for example, while socialized in the truest definition of the word still promotes competition because they don't have one government insurance agency. This is a brief summary of how their system works and how we could attempt to include it in ours. Every citizen is required to join one of the four insurance "companies", but each person can switch up to once a year. All premiums are paid in the form of taxes (hence the socialization). Each company is required to offer a minimum amount of coverage and care that is set by the government, but above that each company can decide what they offer. Here is where it differs from most of the systems. While all "premiums" are paid in the form of taxes each company is funded based on the number of patients enrolled in its system, so the better benefits it is willing to give the more patients who will want to join the, the more money it gets. Then they do allow private insurance for those who can afford it to by above what any of these four would offer if they so choose. A possible way to translate this to our system is to set up a minimum amount of coverage which must given by all insurance companies. Then have an agency (or the government) review the plan an determine how much each plan should be allowed to charge for premiums based on the services given above and beyond the base coverage. Or we could set regulations that state to charge this as a premium you must cover at least this many people, if the plan isn't palatable for most people they will not join and thus the premium will be forced to be low and the company will in turned be forced to change their plan to encourage more people to join so they can charge more. I know there are many flaws with this base idea, but I think that if worked into our model this idea could be fairly effective.

 

[n618ft]

Fir shizzle

 

[armybound]

You guys need to watch the language and avoid insulting one another.

This thread is on the verge of being closed. Please remain on-topic and constructive.

 

[premedfromFL]

You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

QUOTE]


Niranjan162 is right. Every baby that is born in the U.S. is included in the longevity stats no matter how long he or she is alive. Other countries don't do that. Don't be too quick to trust the numbers that seem to indicate that our country isn't providing better health care than others. Instead, go live somewhere else for a few years. Then come back and tell us that American health care sucks. We do have a lot to lose with this reform.

Everyone seems to think that the high cost of healthcare is the main problem here. Spending lots of money on health care isn't necessarily a bad thing right? It seems like a good area of the economy to be putting lots of money into. Isn't that why our medical technology is so cool?

 

[Rendar5]

You do realize the US is the only first world country in the world that does not have any form of "socialized" health care right? The US has the worst health care system of any first world country in the world. It costs by far the most per capita and yet for that money money spent not even everyone has access to it. Basically, to dumb it down, other countries are spending less money and providing better health care for everyone.

QUOTE]


Niranjan162 is right. Every baby that is born in the U.S. is included in the longevity stats no matter how long he or she is alive. Other countries don't do that. Don't be too quick to trust the numbers that seem to indicate that our country isn't providing better health care than others. Instead, go live somewhere else for a few years. Then come back and tell us that American health care sucks. We do have a lot to lose with this reform.

Everyone seems to think that the high cost of healthcare is the main problem here. Spending lots of money on health care isn't necessarily a bad thing right? It seems like a good area of the economy to be putting lots of money into. Isn't that why our medical technology is so cool?

You mean the cool medical technology that costs a lot of money and rarely affects management and outcomes than the cheaper stuff would? Honestly, having gone through medicine for awhile now, our healthcare system is ****ed, and it's not something that can easily be fixed, a lot of the problems are intrinsic in our culture. Like spending millions to make sure someone doesn't have a really really rare disease, or keeping 95yo non-responsive granny in the ICU instead of hospice, or expecting most of the cost to come out of insurance's pocket (it might be better if insurance were not something obtained through employment, were more like auto insurance, and if it were designed for disaster and prevention instead of everything in between)

That said, while I think a lot of what Obama has said is "oh rly?!?! You mean we're not already trying to do this for the last decade or 2?!" at least he's trying something. It'd just be nice if his healthcare team had strong input from practicing doctors in various fields, though, because so much of what he said just came off as not knowing better to someone with just 3 years of clinical experience (I don't know what someone with 10 or 15 years of clinical experience is thinking)....

 

[armybound]

You mean the cool medical technology that costs a lot of money and rarely affects management and outcomes than the cheaper stuff would? Honestly, having gone through medicine for awhile now, our healthcare system is ****ed, and it's not something that can easily be fixed, a lot of the problems are intrinsic in our culture. Like spending millions to make sure someone doesn't have a really really rare disease, or keeping 95yo non-responsive granny in the ICU instead of hospice, or expecting most of the cost to come out of insurance's pocket (it might be better if insurance were not something obtained through employment, were more like auto insurance, and if it were designed for disaster and prevention instead of everything in between)

That said, while I think a lot of what Obama has said is "oh rly?!?! You mean we're not already trying to do this for the last decade or 2?!" at least he's trying something. It'd just be nice if his healthcare team had strong input from practicing doctors in various fields, though, because so much of what he said just came off as not knowing better to someone with just 3 years of clinical experience (I don't know what someone with 10 or 15 years of clinical experience is thinking)....

I think we're on the same wavelength. You seem to understand the way to truly cut costs, but realize that it would require a shift in society's understanding and acceptance of personal responsibility.

 

[Kaustikos]

I think we're on the same wavelength. You seem to understand the way to truly cut costs, but realize that it would require a shift in society's understanding and acceptance of personal responsibility.

Knowing when to pull the plug.

 

[premedfromFL]

You mean the cool medical technology that costs a lot of money and rarely affects management and outcomes than the cheaper stuff would? Honestly, having gone through medicine for awhile now, our healthcare system is ****ed, and it's not something that can easily be fixed, a lot of the problems are intrinsic in our culture. Like spending millions to make sure someone doesn't have a really really rare disease, or keeping 95yo non-responsive granny in the ICU instead of hospice, or expecting most of the cost to come out of insurance's pocket (it might be better if insurance were not something obtained through employment, were more like auto insurance, and if it were designed for disaster and prevention instead of everything in between)

That said, while I think a lot of what Obama has said is "oh rly?!?! You mean we're not already trying to do this for the last decade or 2?!" at least he's trying something. It'd just be nice if his healthcare team had strong input from practicing doctors in various fields, though, because so much of what he said just came off as not knowing better to someone with just 3 years of clinical experience (I don't know what someone with 10 or 15 years of clinical experience is thinking)....

Yeah, when I was younger I always assumed medical insurance was just in case you had a heart attack or got really jacked up in a car accident and would have to pay a $100,000 bill otherwise. Now that I have my own insurance and pay my own bills, I'm upset if I get charged more than a $15 copay for a doctor's visit. It's funny what insurance has become for us.

I guess I'm not in favor of any wastefulness in place of a more cost efficient alternative, but, I mean, when a hospital buys that expensive machine instead of the cheaper one, that created some jobs, right? Or when they keep the 95 yr old in the ICU, those millions of dollars you speak of aren't just disappearing into thin air are they? I'm clearly not an economist or anything, but isn't the "rising cost of healthcare" a little overhyped? (I'm probably missing something, aren't I?)

Those 40+ million uninsured does worry me, so I AM glad Obama's trying SOMETHING. I just hope the reform ends up providing more choices to the patient rather than taking them away.

 

[jkurtz02]

I'm clearly not an economist or anything, but isn't the "rising cost of healthcare" a little overhyped? (I'm probably missing something, aren't I?)

You're right you are missing something. The rising cost of healthcare is a huge thing. The more expensive tests are constantly being run and with everyone of those tests the expense goes up. Insurance companies want to make more and more which increase premiums exponentially. Those millions of dollars spent are what lead to the rising premiums. If the insurance didn't spend all of that money on things like that then the insurance companies wouldn't have to pay out and thus the CEO would make his millions without raising preiums, but since they have to pay out they have to raise premiums and deny other care to make sure the executives are well paid. Those jobs created by buying expensive machinery are replacing the ones that were used for the less expensive ones. Not to mention the US does not create most of the new technology we use. Many (if not most) huge medical discoveries are NOT made in this country.

 

[Bacchus]

The root of the problem as stated above in several posts is: Americans are too attached to life. I took this class, Death and Dying, and unlike other cultures we do not embrace death but are absolutely fearful of it and prolong life far too often for far too long. Of course, ethically we cannot say if you meet X, Y, and Z your ventilator is unplugged. The American viewpoint is unique and unlike most other countries. Unfortunately, this has gotten us into trouble. Instead of accepting reality, we run up the hospital bills into hundreds of thousands of dollars often for a little extension of life or to feel good.

 

[windycitydoc]

Problems with proposed bills being discussed right now..

1. What is the goal of Universal health care? to cover everyone right? Well so far the house has only been able to come up with a bill that covers 2/3 of the uninsured, ya that sounds pretty good right? No. It taxes the **** out of the wealthy and REDISTRIBUTES wealth, which is socialism in its purist form. I believe in competition, capitalism, and hard work. Obama is trying to turn the greatest country in the world into a socialized ****hole.

OH ya.. i almost forgot, that plan costs 1.2 TRILLION DOLLORS, im not even sure thats a real number..

2. Heres another problem (or lack there of).. Where are these people who claim that there are 50 million uninsured? IT'S JUST NOT TRUE!

lets break it down...

10-15 million = ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (**** them)
20-25 million = can afford insurance and choose not to
5-8 million = Young students who are just becoming self sufficient and will soon be covered after entering the work force.

so that leaves between 8-10 million who are truely in need of health coverage..

3. How do we fix this??

- It starts with TORT REFORM... everyone knows this but chooses to ignore it because of those scary lawyers

- Another aspect of health care that is often overlooked is the standardization of insurance paperwork, and all that bs.. If we can come up with a way to standardize this mess of a system then we might just be able to (a) see more patients who lack coverage (b) Stop wasting time with useless paper work and unneeded procedures.

nicely said

 

[rocketbooster]

Problems with proposed bills being discussed right now..

1. What is the goal of Universal health care? to cover everyone right? Well so far the house has only been able to come up with a bill that covers 2/3 of the uninsured, ya that sounds pretty good right? No. It taxes the **** out of the wealthy and REDISTRIBUTES wealth, which is socialism in its purist form. I believe in competition, capitalism, and hard work. Obama is trying to turn the greatest country in the world into a socialized ****hole.

OH ya.. i almost forgot, that plan costs 1.2 TRILLION DOLLORS, im not even sure thats a real number..

2. Heres another problem (or lack there of).. Where are these people who claim that there are 50 million uninsured? IT'S JUST NOT TRUE!

lets break it down...

10-15 million = ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (**** them)
20-25 million = can afford insurance and choose not to
5-8 million = Young students who are just becoming self sufficient and will soon be covered after entering the work force.

so that leaves between 8-10 million who are truely in need of health coverage..

3. How do we fix this??

- It starts with TORT REFORM... everyone knows this but chooses to ignore it because of those scary lawyers

- Another aspect of health care that is often overlooked is the standardization of insurance paperwork, and all that bs.. If we can come up with a way to standardize this mess of a system then we might just be able to (a) see more patients who lack coverage (b) Stop wasting time with useless paper work and unneeded procedures.

wrong. ppl always misquote this. it's NOT ILLEGAL immigrants. it's non-US citizens. ANYONE with a green card would thus fall under this group. do you consider ppl with green cards who have the legal right to live here as illegal immigrants?

I'm sure a big percentage of that 10-15 million are illegal immigrant and the illegal immigration issues needs to be solved. Once they enter the country, I see them as Americans and have the right to health care.

Let's put it this way. If you were the doctor on call in the ER and a patient is rushed in dying right in front of you. You are about to save his life and then you find out he is an illegal immigrant. Are you going to all of a sudden stop treatment and let him die? You don't care about illegal immigrants, right? "**** them" as you said, "**** this patient, not my problem." If you would seriously let him die in front of you, then you should not be a doctor.

Illegal immigration does need to stop, though. It is a huge stress on our system. We need to prevent more from coming in. For the ones who are already here, though, they should not treated like crap.

 

[arrivee]

As someone who has lived in two countries with socialized medicine and seen what it is like to be a patient there, I strongly encourage you to look at the facts before lauding the economic stimulus value of what Obama is trying to do. I absolutely agree that healthcare needs to be made more available to those without insurance, but I think it is irresponsible to implement a plan this like one without details. Obama has been on the media circuit all week and had shockingly few answers for some basic questions about how this system will pay for itself. In addition, many of the models in other nations (Canada, the UK and Germany for example) are broken; Canada in fact is moving is in some cases moving towards limited privitized medicine because people in this country simply do not have enough access. This is not a scare tactic, but a fact that I have experienced first hand. An uncle of mine had to sit in a suburban hospital with a known clot in his brain, waiting for a hospital bed to open up downtown so that it could be removed before it caused a stroke. He was a walking time bomb -- after a week he went to the US to get it removed.

By no means is healthcare in this nation perfect, but jumping headfirst into this, frankly, convoluted and flawed healthcare plan will benefit no one at all.

 

[armybound]

Knowing when to pull the plug.

exactly. but nobody wants that. they want to live forever but don't want to exercise. but they don't want their doctor to just prescribe drugs, either

who knows what the solution is? all I know is it has to be free (or someone else can pay for it), require no effort on my part, and have no side-effects.

 

[Kong Bu]

All out war in this thread. Yet I am saddenend to see how some of you are shedding your self-respect and dignity by insulting and attacking others.

 

[ATB Pre Med]

This healthcare reform bill is important as it'll affect everyone in this forum, potentially. It may seem pointless to some people since words in here might never escape the microcosm of SDN, but this discussion is not about the pointlessness of discussion, it's about the reform bill itself.

If you want to argue about importance and meaning, you should make another thread and then laugh at other people who come here to express their opinions and say how pointless their opinions are. And then you should point out how pointless it is to make a thread about how pointless it is to argue about healthcare reform.

If I'm not clear, by making a post "deriding" how pointless something is, is just as pointless as the post that discusses the pointless issue. If you meant to be constructive you should have made constructive comments.

---

With that said, I agree with you, ATB pre med. This healthcare reform bill is a positive thing. However, your knowledge of the subject and your expression of its positivity makes you appear naive. Everyone should watch Obama's healthcare reform statement.

The healthcare reform bill is complex and it's goal is to increase health coverage, reduce inefficiencies, and decrease costs while increasing our ability to pay for it.

This will not replace private health insurance for people that are happy it.
It'll provide health insurance for people who don't have it.
It'll have laws enforcing health insurance coverage in circumstances where people would lose it. (ie. changing jobs)
It'll limit the ability of health insurance companies to manipulate premiums and costs of health insurance
It'll reduce inefficiencies by centralizing information in computer systems.
It'll reduce redundancies in treatment and overuse of tests in medicaid and healthcare. (we're in debt because of these systems)
Money will come from taxes on people who make more than 250,000
It will not reduce medicare benefits, it'll change them to make them more efficient. (ie. decrease waste)

Of course, this is all dependent on the bill itself and it's too early to say if any of this will come through. In my opinion, it's important that people realize how inefficient and wasteful healthcare is. It's important that people know that a large amount of healthcare is funneled to health insurance companies who at the same time try to reduce "their" costs by limiting access to medicine thereby increasing profit. Of course that doesn't matter if you're fabulously rich with superb coverage.

And I think the focus on the salary part is a bit shallow. I don't understand the circumstances of anyones upbringing and why people on SDN feel entitled to X amount of dollars after becoming a doctor, hence my perception may be limited. I do know that medical school is tough and residency almost as difficult if not worse. I know that becoming a doctor can be overwhelming and impossible at times.

But people have dealt with worse in their lives and somehow they don't feel entitled to anything. Isn't that a bit odd that people who lose their whole family to gang fights and are orphaned at an early age feel like they deserve nothing when they have struggled through so much more in life than any of us; we whose greatest struggle may just be getting into, or through medical school/residency? Of course this is a grand generalization and my opinion. But I think it'll put things into perspective.

I applaud your efforts, ATB pre med. You have my best wishes in your quest to get into medical school.

Thanks ephemeralsun for your courage to speak up. I'm sure there are many others that have read this thread and felt the same way, but were discouraged to comment because of the unnecessary verbal insults from the others. Kudos to you, and good luck as well.

 

[ATB Pre Med]

What a naive and idiotic thread. I'm so tired of all these pre-meds who've never worked a day in their lives saying that "if you go into it for the money, it's the wrong profession" or some variant. As if it was this black and white. You've worked hard, you deserve to be compensated well. If physicians don't demand what they deserve, these socialist a-holes are going to stomp all over them. At least Mayo agrees.

But the thing about it, is that I've worked Very hard all of my life. And kept a full time job since 15. What do YOU know about hard work?

 

[ParthVader]

But the thing about it, is that I've worked Very hard all of my life. And kept a full time job since 15. What do YOU know about hard work?

Good for you that such a life didn't make you cynical about money.. I can't say that I'm the same... Been working since I was 15 and have never lived in anything bigger than a 1 bedroom apartment... I'm working hard for the American dream.. which is to have a nice secure job that I like and make some good money to greatly improve my standard of living.

EDIT: Also, it has always angered me that my mom [single parent] always had to work two jobs to make ends meet, while there were other people who just collected welfare and had healthcare from the state... My mom was JUST over the income limit [because she worked about 14 hours a week at minimum wage..], to get the plan... No matter, I do think that we need some welfare programs and such... but too many of these programs is bad for the American economy and the capitalism that drives the innovation that is the American way of life.

 

[ATB Pre Med]

Go _________ yourself you bureaucracy-loving *****.

You should be booted!