sdf

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
eikenhein said:
What do you think... Should I answer this question from a personal perspective (e.g., lack of family life) or should I answer from a wider perspective (e.g., frustrations from the inequalities of the system)?
Click to expand...

I'd go with choice B. Choice A is valid, but could make you sound less committed to medicine. Plus Choice B gives more of an opportunity to lead into further discussion.
 
zimmie256 said:
I'd go with choice B. Choice A is valid, but could make you sound less committed to medicine. Plus Choice B gives more of an opportunity to lead into further discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure... it asks what you would like least as a physician, not as a member of the US medical system.

Personally, I would try to work in both if you can.
 
zimmie256 said:
I'd go with choice B. Choice A is valid, but could make you sound less committed to medicine. Plus Choice B gives more of an opportunity to lead into further discussion.
Click to expand...

Less committed to medicine? You are human first and a physician second. For example, it is impossible to have the proper perspective as a family physician without a family.

I'd answer the question about how YOU think. There are plenty of problems with the career. Be honest.
 
Endless BS, dealing with insurance and ungodly large amounts of paperwork, patients who don't listen, and depending on speciality arguing with the hospital but kissing enough a$$ to keep your contract to continue working there. Is it still worth it? I hope so and I'll keep my naive dreams the way they are.
 
MossPoh said:
Endless BS, dealing with insurance and ungodly large amounts of paperwork, patients who don't listen, and depending on speciality arguing with the hospital but kissing enough a$$ to keep your contract to continue working there. Is it still worth it? I hope so and I'll keep my naive dreams the way they are.
Click to expand...

Don't forget threat of lawsuits, arguing with other doctors who think they're always right, long residency, being on call, possibly irreperable damage to the relationships you have with family and friends, possible side-effects on your personality (i.e. less likely to tolerate people's indecisiveness and hesitation since it was bred out of you in residency)

but who's counting?

It's surprising that any of us are actually applying to med school considering what we know. Must be the passion that makes us do it.
 
Oculus Sinistra said:
Don't forget threat of lawsuits, arguing with other doctors who think they're always right, long residency, being on call, possibly irreperable damage to the relationships you have with family and friends, possible side-effects on your personality (i.e. less likely to tolerate people's indecisiveness and hesitation since it was bred out of you in residency)

but who's counting?

It's surprising that any of us are actually applying to med school considering what we know. Must be the passion that makes us do it.
Click to expand...

I think we are all just way too damn stubborn. I probably had 20 doctors now ask me why I would ever go into the medical field and then they go on a rant about how it isn't like it used to be. I just reply that it is "all I have ever known" and they really seem confused. Oh well... at least Ill have a german degree to all back on. *cough*
 
MossPoh said:
I think we are all just way too damn stubborn. I probably had 20 doctors now ask me why I would ever go into the medical field and then they go on a rant about how it isn't like it used to be. I just reply that it is "all I have ever known" and they really seem confused. Oh well... at least Ill have a german degree to fall back on. *cough*
Click to expand...

Sure, sure, if we fail out we can use our knowledge to open a chocolate factory. Which is a pretty tempting idea, German degree or not.

I have been told two things:

Medicine is not as good as it used to be, but it's still good enough.
and

Go into medicine and you'll get all the girls.

👍
 
This is a bit off topic, but is it very stressful for family physicians? Do they also have to go through long residencies, irregular on call schedules, and difficult working conditions before they can practice in a clinic?
 
eikenhein said:
What do you think... Should I answer this question from a personal perspective (e.g., lack of family life) or should I answer from a wider perspective (e.g., frustrations from the inequalities of the system)?
Click to expand...

i went with A... bs a lot about not having a family life and expecting to work like a slave and being whipped by all the housing staff during rotations and residency. well, just be rhetoric about it and a little tactful with your words. that was actually the second school offered me an interview.
 
Hey guys/Gals,
Is it possible to be delayed by AMCAS for mistakinly not entering a W grade on the application?
 
eikenhein said:
What do you think you will like least about being a physician?
Click to expand...
Dealing with "sick" people of course! Ok, well, I would probably go with the logistical side of medicine. I've worked for two kinds of insurance companies...health insurance, and short term disability/FMLA. Every single claim requires multiple page forms to be filled out and certified by doctors/doctor's offices. Don't get me wrong, I realize that nurses usually take care of actually filling out the 50 question, 4 page forms. Still, every insurance company will have several nurses on staff whose only job it is to call doctors for clarification. If the forms aren't filled out correctly you either don't get paid, or else you have the patient nipping at your heals or scheduling appointments just so they can confront you about filling out their forms (as is the case with FMLA). Most companies choose to fund their own health insurance, and they simply hire insurance companies to process the claims for them. The insurance companies in these deals process the claims and pay them out of the company's own bank account. In other words, the process is so complicated that companies would rather dish out tons of money just to have someone else do the paperwork! Anyway, my point is that health insurance, federal and state leave laws, and disability insurance make a huge amount of paperwork for doctor's offices; this all has nothing to do with WHY we're actually going into medicine. It's a necessary evil, but you can't become a doctor without it.
 
The money, the sports cars, all the women swooning over me.

I want to go to med school so i can help people. I don't know if I can handle the fame, fortune, and sex.
 
DoctorNick83 said:
Having to touch people
Click to expand...

That's just odd for wanting to be a doctor and you can't handle touching people? That's like being a janitor and you can't handle touching a mop.
 
I said the negative emotions that come along with being a physician.

But then I haven't gotten an interview from that school yet, so don't listen to me.
 
Insurance companies.... no one likes insurance companies.
 
Senor Fish said:
Insurance companies.... no one likes insurance companies.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is true...insurance companies make it possible for poor people to obtain medical care in a capitalistic society. Take them away and even middle class Americans couldn't afford healthcare. Add to this the fact that health insurance companies make up a significant chunk of our economy and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Also, insurance companies serve to prevent physicians and hospitals from running grossly unnecessary tests, and from committing fraud. If insurance companies didn't do this it would be up to individual people. Yes, there are many downsides to insurance, and may ways in which the American health insurance infrastructure could be better...but it's not the presence of the insurance companies themselves that are the source of those problems. Thus, I don't think it's fair to say that no one likes insurance companies.
 
2easy said:
The money, the sports cars, all the women swooning over me.

I want to go to med school so i can help people. I don't know if I can handle the fame, fortune, and sex.
Click to expand...

👍 This is my personal statement in a nutshell.
 
kypdurron5 said:
I don't think this is true...insurance companies make it possible for poor people to obtain medical care in a capitalistic society. Take them away and even middle class Americans couldn't afford healthcare. Add to this the fact that health insurance companies make up a significant chunk of our economy and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Also, insurance companies serve to prevent physicians and hospitals from running grossly unnecessary tests, and from committing fraud. If insurance companies didn't do this it would be up to individual people. Yes, there are many downsides to insurance, and may ways in which the American health insurance infrastructure could be better...but it's not the presence of the insurance companies themselves that are the source of those problems. Thus, I don't think it's fair to say that no one likes insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Tell me how that happens because my poor family hasn't been able to figure that one out.

We don't qualify for medicaid....yet if we wanted to buy insurance about 90% of my parents' salaries would have to go towards it. I'm afraid house bills and food come before that.
 
I hate that I will have to be in service to others!!!
 
Paperwork!!

It's the one thing you can't avoid in life....🙁
 
baylormed said:
Paperwork!!

It's the one thing you can't avoid in life....🙁
Click to expand...

You can at GWU! Its paperless! Still haven't figured out how but I guess all the info still has to be put down - so its just computerwork 🙁
 
Patients.
 
I just have this feeling that (of course, getting admitted to a med school isn't written in stone just yet) one day I will be puked on by a kid who just drank a bunch of grape flavored gadorade.



Administration is probably what will frustrate me the most. I don't like people telling me what way is better when they haven't walked in those shoes. It irks me.
 
-Paperwork
-Delivering babies
-Not getting paid enough
 
wolfram241 said:
Yup... I'm inclined to Pathology, Anesthesiology, and Radiology already.
Click to expand...

Anesthestia deals with patients when putting them under and bringing them up again. And radiology is becoming more interventional -- the days of sitting alone in a dark room are close to over. So that narrows your choices considerably.
 
Law2Doc said:
Anesthestia deals with patients when putting them under and bringing them up again. And radiology is becoming more interventional -- the days of sitting alone in a dark room are close to over. So that narrows your choices considerably.
Click to expand...

I know what anesthesiologists do, but the patient contact is less than other fields. Plus there are others factors that I didn't discuss that lead me to those three (long-term bs being one).
 
kypdurron5 said:
I don't think this is true...insurance companies make it possible for poor people to obtain medical care in a capitalistic society. Take them away and even middle class Americans couldn't afford healthcare.
Click to expand...
So untrue! Medicaid/Medicare does, not insurance companies. With the tough monthly premiums, truly poor people can not afford the high cost of health insurance. Take ins. companies away and America will be a healthier place. OK, maybe not but you get the point.

kypdurron5 said:
Add to this the fact that health insurance companies make up a significant chunk of our economy and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...
So? If anything, this is perhaps another reason why health ins. is unaffordable - ins. co's have lots of employee mouths to feed.

kypdurron5 said:
Also, insurance companies serve to prevent physicians and hospitals from running grossly unnecessary tests, and from committing fraud. If insurance companies didn't do this it would be up to individual people.
Click to expand...
I beg to disagree. Does it mean countries with socialistic health systems such as Great Britain and Canada without all these insurance companies have a bunch of doctors and hospitals running around commiting fraud? No! In this excessively litigious society that we live in, physicians and hospitals are forced to run a bunch of tests to cover their a$$es in the event of a law$uit. Ins. companies only cite "unnecessary tests/procedures" just as reasons to deny payment. Please don't get this twisted. IMHO, ins. co's don't provide any checks and balances. They only take your checks to enrich their own balance sheets.
 
There's definitely something wrong in our society when pre-meds start viewing insurance companies as "friends of the people".
 
wolfram241 said:
I know what anesthesiologists do, but the patient contact is less than other fields. Plus there are others factors that I didn't discuss that lead me to those three (long-term bs being one).
Click to expand...

Well, two out of these three fields are pretty competitive, so expect to put up with a lot of "long-term bs" if you really want them.
 
Law2Doc said:
Well, two out of these three fields are pretty competitive, so expect to put up with a lot of "long-term bs" if you really want them.
Click to expand...

thanks for the advice...🙄
 
GuzzyRon said:
So untrue! Medicaid/Medicare does, not insurance companies. With the tough monthly premiums, truly poor people can not afford the high cost of health insurance. Take ins. companies away and America will be a healthier place. OK, maybe not but you get the point.
Click to expand...
No, I don't get your point, in fact, I think you're completely incorrect. I'll respond to the "cost" of health insurance later in this post.
GuzzyRon said:
So? If anything, this is perhaps another reason why health ins. is unaffordable - ins. co's have lots of employee mouths to feed.
Click to expand...
Who said health insurance is unaffordable? You'll have to tell that to the millions of Americans who choose to afford it every month. As for mouths to feed...if insurance companies can afford to hire more people it's because they have the business revenue and demand to do it. It's not like they suddenly decide to hire more people and raise premiums as a result...no, they get more business and as a result must hire more people, and that business provides the revenue to do so. It's the result, not the cause!!
GuzzyRon said:
I beg to disagree. Does it mean countries with socialistic health systems such as Great Britain and Canada without all these insurance companies have a bunch of doctors and hospitals running around commiting fraud? No! In this excessively litigious society that we live in, physicians and hospitals are forced to run a bunch of tests to cover their a$$es in the event of a law$uit. Ins. companies only cite "unnecessary tests/procedures" just as reasons to deny payment. Please don't get this twisted. IMHO, ins. co's don't provide any checks and balances. They only take your checks to enrich their own balance sheets.
Click to expand...
You've combined two different parts of my post. One was poor people-capitalist society....the other was heath insurance positive results-pursue fraud. I never tied capitalist society with low fraud rates, or said whether capitalism or socialism was better. Try to keep up. In socialist societies we're dealing with government agencies which pay the insurance claims, thus the government is VERY tough on reimbursement rates and investigating fraud in these countries. Finally, insurance companies only investigate grossly unnecessary tests in the event of fraud suspicion. Day to day practice involves paying claims as they are billed and according to the contracts. Believe it or not insurance companies err on the side of paying claims, not denying them!
baylormed said:
Tell me how that happens because my poor family hasn't been able to figure that one out.

We don't qualify for medicaid....yet if we wanted to buy insurance about 90% of my parents' salaries would have to go towards it. I'm afraid house bills and food come before that.
Click to expand...
Ok, now to the topic of health insurance affordability. Let's first realize that usually when we talk about people not being able to afford healthcare we're talking about the costs of healthcare, not health insurance premiums. Next, it's also important to realize that health insurance coverage is available. It's true that if your job doesn't offer it that it's quite expensive. That's one of the reasons that the legislature is pushing towards providing health insurance subsidies. In addition, many health insurance companies allow small businesses to band together and provide health insurance similar to what larger corporations offer. Which brings me to my next point; every major company offers some kind of health insurance. True, some plans are better than others, but THERE IS NO PLAN WHICH REQUIRES 90% OF YOUR INCOME TO GO TOWARDS PREMIUMS. It's true, I'm making a universal statement about every single health insurance plan offered by every company in America...but I DARE you to prove me wrong. Even WalMart provides health insurance, and it isn't very expensive...I just reviewed the benefit plans as my brother recently started working there. The sticking point with WalMart are the deductibles and whatnot...but remember, we're talking about health insurance {premium} affordability, NOT healthcare affordability. Deductibles, coinsurance, maximums, copays are all apart of the member responsibility which are only UP TO the actual cost of the healthcare, thus these costs are part of the healthcare costs, not the health insurance costs. Look, I'm not saying that every single poor person in America can afford health insurance premiums, but if you work a job and draw a salary, and your company offers some kind of health insurance (and most do), the costs of health insurance are INSIGNIFICANT next to the costs of healthcare. This is why health insurance companies are necessary in a capitalistic society. Hospitals and doctors want to make lots of money just like patients do. If you really want someone to blame, you should be blaming ridiculous healthcare costs, not health insurance companies which only serve to reduce healthcare costs (and yes, make money in the process...just like everyone else in this country has the right to make money).

Finally, at the major health insurance company I worked at over 80% of our companies funded their own health insurance plans. Like I talked about before, we simply processed the claims and paid them from the companies' own bank accounts. This means the companies decide how much to subsidize, how much to charge employees, what benefits to offer, and where to set deductibles, coinsurance, maximums, copays, etc. We as the insurance company have almost NOTHING to do with this. Thus when you talk about a claim being denied, we're not talking about the big bad evil insurance company, we're talking about the employer which was responsible for choosing what is covered and what is not. It's so easy to blame insurance companies for healthcare problems, and it's true that they aren't shining examples of altruism. Still, if you're going to blame someone you need to know WHO to blame, and what they are and are not directly responsible for.
 
Bad things about being physician...

-Massive debt
-Constant threat of being sued
-High cost of malpractice insurance
-Long hours
-High stress

Insurance companies are here to make money, not be your friend. In order to make money they must spend as little as they can on your care which is in direct contradiction with exceptional care. The day insurance companies are your friend is the day hell freezes.
 
It doesn't matter with medicaid/medicare anyway..they just go to the ER and dont' even use that. One of the ER docs said some ridiculous stat..like 2/3rds of his patients will never actually pay. I think the frustration with the low income people on medicaid was that a huge majority had their priorities ass backwards. They come in covered in tats, piercings, smoking 2 or 3 packs a day but they can't afford to pay the 10 dollars for the antibiotics for their child....but at least they have the cash to get that cute little belly button ring....not that I'm bitter.
 
kypdurron5 said:
The sticking point with WalMart are the deductibles and whatnot...but remember, we're talking about health insurance {premium} affordability, NOT healthcare affordability. Deductibles, coinsurance, maximums, copays are all apart of the member responsibility which are only UP TO the actual cost of the healthcare, thus these costs are part of the healthcare costs, not the health insurance costs. Look, I'm not saying that every single poor person in America can afford health insurance premiums, but if you work a job and draw a salary, and your company offers some kind of health insurance (and most do), the costs of health insurance are INSIGNIFICANT next to the costs of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Great "forest for the trees" argument, there. So, what good does it do for someone to be able to have health insurance that doesn't allow them to actually seek out the health care they need? So they pay their insurance premiums, but when they actually end up in the emergency room, they're on the streets trying to pay the debt they amass?

Furthermore, you are entirely talking out your ass about the availability of health insurance. No, it is not readily available to the poor. Health insurance is readily available to middle-class, white-collar workers. Many, many people are not nearly so lucky.

As for Wal-Mart: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/downloads/americapays.pdf
 
_ian said:
Great "forest for the trees" argument, there. So, what good does it do for someone to be able to have health insurance that doesn't allow them to actually seek out the health care they need? So they pay their insurance premiums, but when they actually end up in the emergency room, they're on the streets trying to pay the debt they amass?

Furthermore, you are entirely talking out your ass about the availability of health insurance. No, it is not readily available to the poor. Health insurance is readily available to middle-class, white-collar workers. Many, many people are not nearly so lucky.
Click to expand...
Obviously you choose to see only what want to. Who am I to think that I could correct your ignorance? You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Just because WalMart insurance has high deductibles, coinsurance, etc. has NOTHING to do with things like ER visits where you amass very large amounts of debt. When people talk about WalMart health insurance being poor they're not talking about ER visits, they're talking about high up-front costs like deductibles (which are healthcare costs, not insurance costs). Finally, you completely ignored the premise of my argument. IT'S NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY THAT'S THE PROBLEM, IT'S WALMART...it's the company they work for, not the insurance administrator!!! If you've ever watched the news you would know this...WalMart watch groups aren't protesting against WalMart's insurance company, they're protesting WalMart because they know it has nothing to do with the insurance administrator. WalMart decides how much to charge their employees, WalMart chooses the benefits, WalMart sets the deductibles.

Oh my friend, you are so very ignorant on this topic. Maybe I'm wrong though, it may just be the English language you're not understanding. "Available" means "suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand." What I said was health insurance is available, and it is....anyone can get some kind of health insurance, it's only a question of how much they have to pay for it. Wealth does not change the availability of a service, only the accessibility of it. It's true, there are people who do certain kinds of work for a very low wage and whose jobs do not provide health insurance, and therefore cannot afford health insurance premiums. Still, it has nothing to do with someone's wealth-class (middle-class is a pretty wealthy bracket in this country) or the kind of work someone does (a blue-collar construction worker can easily obtain low-cost health insurance if offered by the construction company). Continuing along the blue-collar line, there are many blue-collar workers that make far more money than I make now...so don't tell me blue-collar means you're poor. Also, two jobs ago I was working a 100% white-collar position for $8.50 an hour...that's just above poverty level my friend, forget middle-class.

I think you've lost track of what we're talking about here. Someone said "everyone hates insurance companies," and my argument is that the insurance companies we are so familiar with are not responsible for MOST of the problems we normally associate with health insurance companies. I in no way meant to say that WalMart is a shining example of anything, merely that even WalMart employees have access to relatively low-cost (again, PREMIUMS) insurance. I didn't say it was great insurance, in fact, I said the exact opposite. But still, we're not talking about problems with the insurance industry when someone complains about forking out $750 for a $10,000 surgery....we're talking about problems with the employer which sets the member responsibilities, and we're talking about the healthcare providers who ridiculously exaggerate their prices to begin with. If you care to debate me on this, then by all means, present your evidence and counter-argument. I do not intend to be rude, but your response was so completely inadequate it simply demands no respect whatsoever.
 
.
 
kypdurron5 said:
long
Click to expand...
I have little argument here, because I wasn't trying to place blame. Yes, you're absolutely right that insurance companies are not at the root of the problem. That is not, and was never, the beef I had. You said "insurance companies make it possible for poor people to obtain medical care." I am saying that no, they most certainly do not. I am not saying it is their fault, I am saying that medical care is not easy for the poor to come across. Nothing more, nothing less.

As such, the semantics you're addressing in your post don't mean anything to me. "Availability" as you define it is not relevant to my point. Available, accessible, whatever. As for blue-collar/white-collar, I was generalizing for the sake of being concise. You know what I meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

coffeebythelake
sdf
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TroubleTheCat
T
coffeebythelake
sdf
Replies
15
Views
3K
LifetimeDoc
LifetimeDoc
coffeebythelake
sdf
Replies
11
Views
3K
DE12MD
D
coffeebythelake
sdf
Replies
33
Views
4K
inside_edition
I
coffeebythelake
sdf
Replies
0
Views
1K
coffeebythelake
coffeebythelake
Top