Significant issues that the medical profession will face in the future!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Jazz00

Jazz00

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hey, guys, What do you see as the most significant issue the medical profession will face in the future?
Members don't see this ad.
 
There is a huge shortage of physicians currently, and it's only slated to get worse.
 
Hey, guys, What do you see as the most significant issue the medical profession will face in the future?
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone doesn't want to write their own secondary essay. :rolleyes:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
:laugh: o wow! ... so much for help huh!
 
Jazz00 said:
Hey, guys, What do you see as the most significant issue the medical profession will face in the future?
Click to expand...

The 2039 shortage of Implantable Gromney BioCapacitors will be a global medical crisis unlike any seen since the great platypusflu pandemic of 2011.
 
I am just asking for a few ideas here, nothing major ... as I don't really how to approach the question that's all.
 
Or pick up any major/state newspaper and flip to the science/medicine page
 
Insurance reimbursements continue to tank, major chunks of medicine are being delegated to midlevels as a result. Malpractice rates continue to soar. The aforementioned physician shortage. Pharmaceutical research is primarily profit driven - if a potentially beneficial drug is not deemed profitable, it might not get sufficiently researched to make it to market.

Discuss.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thank you all. :)
 
rofl Nice thread
 
People keep dying. Seems like a pretty big issue to me...
 
well, let's see. For one, if a universal health care plan were actually employed, more people would be covered. At the moment, there is a huge shortage of physicians. More people covered=more work for physicians (who are already too busy), which would lead to an even worse shortage. An increasing population of old people who waste the earth's oxygen by breathing, and vote for McCain would also leech what social security $$ we have left, and would leave less $$ for a universal health care plan that is already inherently unrealistic, too expensive, and causes a degradation in an already bad medical device research business (someone mentioned earlier, the only things that are researched by pharmaceuticals are those which can make profit, incidentally, if universal health care was imposed, there would be less incentive, therefore less innovation). And most important of all (this is the only issue that matters to me about the issue) physicans would make less cash under a universal health care plan, because in microeconomic terms, the government has no competitor so it can pay whatever it likes (so long as not to cause every doctor in the United States to leave the market because of unprofitability and stupidity of a beauracratic system of insurance)
I think those that can't afford health insurance should be weeded out by natural selection. :thumbup:
 
DrAnteater said:
well, let's see. For one, if a universal health care plan were actually employed, more people would be covered. At the moment, there is a huge shortage of physicians. More people covered=more work for physicians (who are already too busy), which would lead to an even worse shortage. An increasing population of old people who waste the earth's oxygen by breathing, and vote for McCain would also leech what social security $$ we have left, and would leave less $$ for a universal health care plan that is already inherently unrealistic, too expensive, and causes a degradation in an already bad medical device research business (someone mentioned earlier, the only things that are researched by pharmaceuticals are those which can make profit, incidentally, if universal health care was imposed, there would be less incentive, therefore less innovation). And most important of all (this is the only issue that matters to me about the issue) physicans would make less cash under a universal health care plan, because in microeconomic terms, the government has no competitor so it can pay whatever it likes (so long as not to cause every doctor in the United States to leave the market because of unprofitability and stupidity of a beauracratic system of insurance)
I think those that can't afford health insurance should be weeded out by natural selection. :thumbup:
Click to expand...


Sarcasm? Hopefully?
 
LET said:
DRAnteater will be treating people. Not gonna lie, that sounds like a problem inherent to the profession.
Click to expand...

Haha, I can just see the scene now:

"The test results came back, and it looks like you have metastatic lung cancer."

"Oh my god...So what happens now?"

"Nothing. Obviously with your genes, you're predisposed you to cancer, so we want to eliminate you from the gene pool."
 
JackInTheBox said:
Haha, I can just see the scene now:

"The test results came back, and it looks like you have metastatic lung cancer."

"Oh my god...So what happens now?"

"Nothing. Obviously with your genes, you're predisposed you to cancer, so we want to eliminate you from the gene pool."
Click to expand...

lolz
 
DrAnteater said:
well, let's see. For one, if a universal health care plan were actually employed, more people would be covered. At the moment, there is a huge shortage of physicians. More people covered=more work for physicians (who are already too busy), which would lead to an even worse shortage. An increasing population of old people who waste the earth's oxygen by breathing, and vote for McCain would also leech what social security $$ we have left, and would leave less $$ for a universal health care plan that is already inherently unrealistic, too expensive, and causes a degradation in an already bad medical device research business (someone mentioned earlier, the only things that are researched by pharmaceuticals are those which can make profit, incidentally, if universal health care was imposed, there would be less incentive, therefore less innovation). And most important of all (this is the only issue that matters to me about the issue) physicans would make less cash under a universal health care plan, because in microeconomic terms, the government has no competitor so it can pay whatever it likes (so long as not to cause every doctor in the United States to leave the market because of unprofitability and stupidity of a beauracratic system of insurance)
I think those that can't afford health insurance should be weeded out by natural selection. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Just because the government has a monopoly doesnt mean that doctors will be paid pennies. Doctors are needed in every civilized society, and they are expected to be among the top earners. Or else, nobody would be willing to put so much sacrifice towards that end. Say what you want about not being supposed to do it for money, but whoever honestly believes that most doctors put altruism (with very great sacrifices and difficulty) over money is very naive. Sure a small minority like Dr. Paeglow might do that, but in this society, people want to be compensated for what they do. Medicine is not volunteer work.

Ok enough of that. Look at Canada. They have universal health care. Over there, patients have to wait weeks and sometimes months for urgent surgeries. Not good for patients, at all. Good for outsourcing medical tourism. One province did not allow any doctor to earn more than $400,000. However, it caused a serious shortage in specialists, so that cap was repealed. One great benefit of Canadian universal health care is no private managed care (no bureaucratic insurance companies). My point is, most doctors in Canada earn 6 figure incomes, without managed care (though I will admit, taxes are nasty) and when there is a shortage, the salary of doctors will rise. I know that sounds like market economics and it wouldn't work for a federally managed system, but when its bad enough to cause a severe shortage, the government will have to cooperate with the market.
 
Dubaifan490 said:
Ok enough of that. Look at Canada. They have universal health care. Over there, patients have to wait weeks and sometimes months for urgent surgeries. Not good for patients, at all. Good for outsourcing medical tourism. One province did not allow any doctor to earn more than $400,000. However, it caused a serious shortage in specialists, so that cap was repealed. One great benefit of Canadian universal health care is no private managed care (no bureaucratic insurance companies). My point is, most doctors in Canada earn 6 figure incomes, without managed care (though I will admit, taxes are nasty) and when there is a shortage, the salary of doctors will rise. I know that sounds like market economics and it wouldn't work for a federally managed system, but when its bad enough to cause a severe shortage, the government will have to cooperate with the market.
Click to expand...

Canada's system is incredibly underfunded. Also, when did the anti-universal healthcare folks get together and decide that "universal healthcare" is synonymous with "Canadian public health services"? Do you honestly believe we're going to just copy Canada's exact system without tweaking and changing things based on our own social and economic needs? Not a single candidate for president throughout the primaries offered a program remotely similar to Canada's, and yet everyone seems to think we're just an inch away from having maple leaves on our insurance cards.

Does anyone actually read healthcare policy anymore?

Anyone?
 
There's only one real solution to the problem. So, at the moment around 16% of the population is uninsured. Medicare/Medicaid assistance is provided to these people, however, physicians are refusing these reimbursements because they are far more inferior to those which they receive from private health insurance. SOLUTION:
Increase funding for federal aid programs so they can compete with private reimbursements, and finally, you have physicians who will actually accept Medicaid.
Why the hell would it make sense for the government to cover EVERYONE in the country when clearly a large percentage of citizens can afford to do so themselves.
That's my dilemna with universal health care, I think its a bull$h!t idea that will ultimately lower the quality of pharmaceutical research, and possibly physicians lives (most important)
 
I concurr that socialized medicine and national health care are the biggest threats to both patients and physicians.

Canada's system is incredibly underfunded.
Click to expand...

Lol @ the classic defense to every failed bureaucracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

J
are there issues with waiting too long to accept an admission?
Replies
1
Views
343
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
P
Will med schools accept lower grades for medical reasons?
Replies
8
Views
962
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
J
Having issues "connecting with interviewers"
Replies
21
Views
1K
ron_johnson
ron_johnson
B
Talking about the mental health issues of others in personal statement
Replies
9
Views
783
blissworm
B
M
Schools that will Review your App without MCAT Scores
Replies
10
Views
498
chilly_md
chilly_md
Top