Shortage of doctors

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Kind of interesting. For those who don't want to click on it and read, it basically says that the Obama administration is looking at raising medicare payments to primary care docs by cutting payments to specialists.
 
.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
Optimator said:
It's actually entirely UNinteresting. Nothing in this article is news to anyone pursuing medicine. It reveals absolutely ZERO insight into where the administration is heading. It's like a Wikipedia article on "Doctor Shortage."

This article is worthless to anyone other than a 7-11 employee who likes to "keep up on current events."
Click to expand...

Hey! As a 7-11 employee who likes to keep up on current events, I'm offended 😡
 
.
 
Last edited:
Optimator said:
No. Do you?
Click to expand...

What an ingenious retort, I feel like I'm 10 again :laugh:

About the article though, it was actually a decent read. I could imagine that coming up in an interview. I like how the orthopedics guy is worried about specialist compensation. Isn't orthopedics one of the highest paid specialties?

fizzle said:
Hey! As a 7-11 employee who likes to keep up on current events, I'm offended 😡
Click to expand...

If there's one person you don't want to offend, it's a 7-11 employee.
 
Optimator said:
The fact that you found it a decent read ain't good. I was just accepted to med school. Apparently you haven't been yet. Let's just say this - if this is news to you, you won't get into medical school. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I never said it was news to me, but it could be news to some other pre-med. We aren't all born with this knowledge, and articles like this could help people learn about what's currently going on. How did you learn about the physician shortage and the methods of addressing it? We all have to start somewhere. Congratulations on being accepted to medical school. Let's just say this - you're an a-hole
 
Optimator said:
Congrats on your ability to be literal, but my comment wasn't referring to ignorant pre-meds.
Click to expand...

*****: Everyone on this planet has brown hair.

Other person: WTF are you talking about?

*****: Well, everyone has brown hair except those loser blondes and redheads.

Optimator said:
This information isn't relevant to them, they won't become doctors.
Click to expand...
Optimator said:
The fact that you found it a decent read ain't good. I was just accepted to med school. Apparently you haven't been yet. Let's just say this - if this is news to you, you won't get into medical school. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Wow. Are you a school administrator now, too? Do us all a favor and peace out.
 
"The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year."

News to me. great article fizzle.
 
interesting article- compensation for primary care docs definitely needs to increase- hopefully this will happen right after we fix our wildly-out-of-whack health care system, heh.

guys- don't bother feeding the troll.
 
hahaha i laugh at how im going against my own advice, but it's a sunday and im procrastinating so whatever.

you call someone "pathetic" if they found it an interesting read? you call someone "vastly under-prepared" if they learned something from reading it?

if you are indeed not a troll, optimator, you are the only person in this forum who is demonstrating that you are vastly under-prepared for medicine, by both your demeanor and your needlessly confrontational attitude.
 
murdoc9 said:
interesting article- compensation for primary care docs definitely needs to increase- hopefully this will happen right after we fix our wildly-out-of-whack health care system, heh.

guys- don't bother feeding the troll.
Click to expand...

I find reading mainstream articles on this kind of subject useful, to understand the popular discourse around these very hot-button issues.

Something can be an interesting read and not teach you anything new.

Am I making peace or stirring the pot? *ducks*
 
WaterBird said:
I find reading mainstream articles on this kind of subject useful, to understand the popular discourse around these very hot-button issues.

Something can be an interesting read and not teach you anything new.

Am I making peace or stirring the pot? *ducks*
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Optimator said:
I'm not a troll. What I'm telling you is that if this is some revelation to you, you are grossly unprepared for the career you intend on pursuing.
Click to expand...

What a douchebag. So its people like you that give doctors a bad name. Well, I just hope whatever this administration does will result in a paycut for you.
 
Oh boy.

Yet another guy who wants to be just like House, yet we all know kissed ass the same as any other pre-med in front of the adcom. Yet another guy who, in his neverending quest to be seen as a brilliant, sarcastic jerk, tries to practice his skills on an anonymous forum by being a jerk, but forgetting to actually say anything intelligent.

I mean, if he ACTUALLY didn't care what people thought of him, he'd post his name in his signature for the world to see, wouldn't he?

I see this show a lot on this forum. I'm ready to change the channel now. It's getting boring.
 
ok who gives a crap. Obama's prevailing theme is redistribution of wealth...so while it may be smart to increase the incentive for docs to go into primary care, is it right to do that by cutting specialist pay? That's the real question here. If there was a way to guarantee 100% of the money went to what it was supposed to and not pocketed/wasted/embezzled, I'd be WAY more willing to pay an extra tax to create more PCPs (than take from specialties that make more).

There's a market shortage. The market will and already has started correcting this on its own (NPs and PAs...if they want to do it more power to them)...but nooo Obama wants the government to step in and screw things up.

👎 to robin hood economics.
 
sdguy2008 said:
"The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year."

News to me. great article fizzle.
Click to expand...


umm.. that actually was announced back in 2006..lol..

well... i guess it would be news to many..

i knew that since 2006 because ECU and UNC are getting more seats..(09'10 or '10-'11 school year... i'm not sure which.. i think its the former) haha... more chance for me to get into one of them schools.. yea!

btw thats nothing OBAMA has done it was gonna happen even before.. the only thing obama is going to do is cut pay..

when he says primary would be a paid higher than before relative to specialities.. what he means is that he'll cut pay for the speciality docs and keep the PCP pay the same..

man! I can't believe I was pro-Obama for 2 years now!
 
BTW i hate PA's, mainly becuz the health center on our campus only has PA's no MD's..

I can't believe I pay 400$ per semester to get health care from PA's .. eff UNCC!
 
batteries said:
that sounds a lot more like what a politician would do, good job 😀
Click to expand...

lol.. yeap.. i have a couple of politicians in my family.. well back in India..

but all politicians are the same...
 
Cut it out, kiddies. And stay off my lawn!
 
^^^ lol some of ur comments I'm just like - " what the hell is he talking abt?"
 
Let's be honest: if you read the article you're going to be a terrible doctor. It's as simple as that. You should be spending you time saving African children, transporting patients, serving food to the homeless, researching an all-in-one cure for cancer, HIV, malaria, and staph, and studying everything even remotely related to science. Seriously, you'd better get going if you want to even THINK about getting into med school.
 
Don't want to deal with the future of medicine? Don't go into medicine.

Less competition for me.
 
batteries said:
ok who gives a crap. Obama's prevailing theme is redistribution of wealth...so while it may be smart to increase the incentive for docs to go into primary care, is it right to do that by cutting specialist pay? That's the real question here. If there was a way to guarantee 100% of the money went to what it was supposed to and not pocketed/wasted/embezzled, I'd be WAY more willing to pay an extra tax to create more PCPs (than take from specialties that make more).

There's a market shortage. The market will and already has started correcting this on its own (NPs and PAs...if they want to do it more power to them)...but nooo Obama wants the government to step in and screw things up.

👎 to robin hood economics.
Click to expand...

#1 the structure of health insurance make the market much slower to react
#2 is it fair now for cardiovascular surgeons to make nearly 4 times as much as pediatricians? if we under-value primary care economically, isn't there a chance that we over-value other specialties?

I'm not a strong believer in either side of this debate, but I can see both sides. It just rubs me a little bit the wrong way when people are all "ZOMG, Obama will make the specialists pooooor." That will not happen. Period. While the days are over when the doctor is the town bigshot, doctors still do fine, and will continue. And some of the same people who are saying this are ragging on other people for wanting to go into medicine to make a good living. (Batteries - your post was more thought out than that and this is not directed at you, but it made me think about this).
 
vickpick said:
^^^ lol some of ur comments I'm just like - " what the hell is he talking abt?"
Click to expand...

I was 1. telling the participants of the earlier arguments to knock it off, while 2. implying that their argument was juvenile and 3. making fun of myself for being an old carmudgeon.
 
Optimator said:
The fact that you found it a decent read ain't good. I was just accepted to med school. Apparently you haven't been yet. Let's just say this - if this is news to you, you won't get into medical school. Good luck.
Click to expand...


Congrats on your brand new DO acceptance, I see that it has turned you into a dick.
 
Its time to get back on track folks... be good little cells and follow those cyto/chemokines to the big, bad mama cell known as the NYTimes article linked in the first post.
 
batteries said:
ok who gives a crap. Obama's prevailing theme is redistribution of wealth...
Click to expand...

As an aside, I find this recurrent bemoaning of "wealth redistribution" rather curious. For starters, it's not wealth, it's income. More importantly, just the phrase itself seems to imply that the system is being made less fair by adjusting income by shifting tax burdens.

However, when I read about the gap between productivity gains and income gains over the last ten years, I have to wonder just how fair the system has been. For instance, peruse this CNN Money article from last year: "Work harder, take home less - From 2000 to 2007, worker productivity rose significantly in the United States, but real income fell for middle-class families, a group of economists says."

Despite two periods of recession in the past decade, U.S. worker productivity still rose 18% in the 2000s - about 2.5% per year, according to author Jared Bernstein, a widely followed economist from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

But inflation-adjusted income for the American middle-class family actually fell during the same period. The median real income for working-age middle-income families in the United States dropped $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, from about $58,500 to $56,500, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

As a result, the 2000-2007 business cycle was the first ever in which the nation's middle-class families had less real income at the end than when they started.
Click to expand...

Another finding from the book: Many middle class Americans who had jobs probably found that their bosses were getting big raises, while their paychecks were staying about the same.

That's because 90% of the growth in U.S. workers' income from 1989 to 2007 went to the top 10% highest earners, EPI said. Income for the top 1% grew 204% since 1989, and the top 0.1% saw their income grow 425% in that span.
Click to expand...

Bearing this in mind, perhaps it would be more apt coin the phrase "weath re-redistribution."
 
I just think its really cool an article like this was published - maybe it will encourage conversation and awareness by those who really never have considered it. It's also great that the President is speaking out about this knowledgeably, because its a huge issue. Just goes back to the typical example that's always brought up -- Medicare will pay $30,000 to a surgeon for a foot amputation, but won't pay a primary care doctor a few hundred for "thinking" and administering some preventative treatments.
 
I'm surprised the left wing politicians aren't arguing in favor of tax-payer subsidized medical school (to the point where it's free). From a left-wing ideological standpoint, this would kill two birds with one stone; more people would become physicians because the schooling is free. Secondly, this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor because physicians would no longer have the "high debt" complaint with which to argue against pay cuts. As a result, we'd have thousands of new doctors happily earning $80,000/year with no debt. It seems like a socialist's dream come true.
 
Bacchus said:
Ick, one of the three proposed solutions is the heightened role of PAs and NPs... :scared:
Click to expand...
Are you on crack or do you really fear someone taking over the role no one else wants to? Batman did it.:laugh:
 
usermike8500 said:
I'm surprised the left wing politicians aren't arguing in favor of tax-payer subsidized medical school (to the point where it's free). From a left-wing ideological standpoint, this would kill two birds with one stone; more people would become physicians because the schooling is free. Secondly, this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor because physicians would no longer have the "high debt" complaint with which to argue against pay cuts. As a result, we'd have thousands of new doctors happily earning $80,000/year with no debt. It seems like a socialist's dream come true.
Click to expand...
I don't get how that would even work......
 
When I become a PCP, I'm going to lift weights while I see my patients. Then I can charge up the wazoo for the "physical labor" of my job. 😉 (not to mention I'll have a super tone body at the end of each day)
 
usermike8500 said:
I'm surprised the left wing politicians aren't arguing in favor of tax-payer subsidized medical school (to the point where it's free). From a left-wing ideological standpoint, this would kill two birds with one stone; more people would become physicians because the schooling is free. Secondly, this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor because physicians would no longer have the "high debt" complaint with which to argue against pay cuts. As a result, we'd have thousands of new doctors happily earning $80,000/year with no debt. It seems like a socialist's dream come true.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you wrote that tongue-in-cheek, but just to be safe...when has the cost of medical school ever kept anyone from becoming a doctor? Everyone is eligible for loans. And free schooling means I'd be happy working 60+ hours a week for $80,000/year, after a decade or more of training? :laugh:
 
WaterBird said:
#1 the structure of health insurance make the market much slower to react
#2 is it fair now for cardiovascular surgeons to make nearly 4 times as much as pediatricians? if we under-value primary care economically, isn't there a chance that we over-value other specialties?

I'm not a strong believer in either side of this debate, but I can see both sides. It just rubs me a little bit the wrong way when people are all "ZOMG, Obama will make the specialists pooooor." That will not happen. Period. While the days are over when the doctor is the town bigshot, doctors still do fine, and will continue. And some of the same people who are saying this are ragging on other people for wanting to go into medicine to make a good living. (Batteries - your post was more thought out than that and this is not directed at you, but it made me think about this).
Click to expand...

first I also appreciate that you typed out a reasoned response 🙂

-- I agree the health care market is different than the traditional market model. Still the point stands that NPs and PAs are clamoring to fill the primary care need. Will they be enough? Who knows.

-- Do you notice the difference between our posts--I asked what was right, and you asked what was fair...these are not always the same thing. Draw your own conclusions

--" And some of the same people who are saying this are ragging on other people for wanting to go into medicine to make a good living."
Huh? Maybe I"m reading you wrong but doesn't this sort of make sense? The people who would want to go into medicine for the money are most concerned about specialist pay declining? Not sure if I understand what you were saying there.
 
Gut Shot said:
As an aside, I find this recurrent bemoaning of "wealth redistribution" rather curious. For starters, it's not wealth, it's income. More importantly, just the phrase itself seems to imply that the system is being made less fair by adjusting income by shifting tax burdens.

However, when I read about the gap between productivity gains and income gains over the last ten years, I have to wonder just how fair the system has been. For instance, peruse this CNN Money article from last year: "Work harder, take home less - From 2000 to 2007, worker productivity rose significantly in the United States, but real income fell for middle-class families, a group of economists says."
Click to expand...

Again we have people posting about what is fair. Fair implies that one knows what is best for everyone. Oddly enough fair usually ends up being whatever benefits the person making the decisions.

I never said that redistributing income was less fair, but I do not think it is right (in the broad sense, clearly we have public taxes and such for a reason). I do not believe American values align with excessively taxing successful individuals just because other people want a piece. These people probably find this "fair" 🙄--how? Because they want more money? Great, but the problem is that if the positions were switched, they would also think it was "fair" to NOT redistribute.

--I think most people know wealth =/= income.
--The last part of your post is rather ironic in that if we continued down the slippery slope of "working harder and taking home less" people would have no incentive to work hard, and the system would collapse.

Healthcare will probably be completely socialized eventually, and I think it will take a complete collapse of the system before it's restructured in a realistic sense. While I COMPLETELY agree with Obama's ideas in THEORY, there is just not enough money to go around to take care of the large, somewhat unhealthy US population. Furthermore cementing these ideas would likely decrease productivity as people tend to assume that "other people" will be paying for their healthcare. What happens when no one is very productive and everyone's expecting a check? The system fails.
While I am not implying that Obama=socialism I think many of the measures once enacted will be very difficult to reverse. Social security has never been repealed so if we are going to make healthcare universal we should plan long term and figure out how we are going to take care of the US population.

Maragret Thatcher once said "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." The main problem I have with your ideas is that they do not seem realistic.
 
batteries said:
The main problem I have with your ideas is that they do not seem realistic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well, I haven't really expressed any ideas, just a few idle thoughts not directed at anyone. But I can see that you are very interested in creating demons, so have fun with that.
 
binko said:
I was 1. telling the participants of the earlier arguments to knock it off, while 2. implying that their argument was juvenile and 3. making fun of myself for being an old carmudgeon.
Click to expand...


o okay, then I approve 👍
 
batteries said:
-- Do you notice the difference between our posts--I asked what was right, and you asked what was fair...these are not always the same thing. Draw your own conclusions
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting point. I agree they aren't always the same, but I would change fair to right in my previous post, ie "is it right that cardiovascular surgeons make nearly 4x pediatricians" and still stand by that as a pertinent question.

batteries said:
Oddly enough fair usually ends up being whatever benefits the person making the decisions.

I never said that redistributing income was less fair, but I do not think it is right (in the broad sense, clearly we have public taxes and such for a reason). I do not believe American values align with excessively taxing successful individuals just because other people want a piece. ... but the problem is that if the positions were switched, they would also think it was "fair" to NOT redistribute.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence in this quote is overly cynical and not really well justified. Unless I'm missing something.
And the problem with your second quote is the word I bolded - most Americans (with American values) would agree that it is fair to tax rich people more than poor people - the question is what is "excessive" which I would argue is as subjective as "fair" (one could argue they are pretty much the same as I would suspect that people would categorize as "excessive" what they found "unfair"). It is also not true that everyone who wants a progressive tax code would benefit from it - if so, all poor people would vote Dem and all rich people would vote Repub, which simply doesn't happen.

batteries said:
Huh? Maybe I"m reading you wrong but doesn't this sort of make sense? The people who would want to go into medicine for the money are most concerned about specialist pay declining? Not sure if I understand what you were saying there.
Click to expand...

Not quite - let me clarify - sorry for this being garbled.
Person A: I want to be a doctor for the money!
Person B: That is a terrible reason, you will be a terrible doc and you will probably not make it through residency.
Person C: I think Obama's plans are relevant to our future, do you guys want to talk about it?
Person B: Obama is an evil socialist because he will make doctors poor.
And then I think "PersonB kind of wants it both ways".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
do med schools require a doctors note?
Replies
2
Views
632
Goro
Goro
WildWing
Testing Opportunity - New Version of SDN's Becoming a Student Doctor Course
Replies
0
Views
222
WildWing
WildWing
E
PS might be too critical of past doctors
Replies
24
Views
2K
RunnerDad
R
C
SDN Article: Benefits of Global Health Education for Future Doctors
Replies
0
Views
873
Chris M. Kurian
C
T
  • Locked
Doctors leaving medicine
Replies
16
Views
5K
gyngyn
gyngyn
Top