Exi and The Imprisoned: I really am curious as to why you think ACA, with its insurance mandate that improves the prospect that docs will get paid, somehow increases the degree to which others can demand service of others.
Do you object to the ACA giving a group which previously couldn't afford to pay their doctors the ability to pay their doctors? If your gripe is that, under the health care system, you are being forced to do unpaid labor, then ACA alleviates that gripe.
Does it bother you that people who previously were free riders on the system will now have to pay for the benefits they get? I can't believe you'd side with the free riders, especially since they are the ones who, pre-ACA,were demanding others labor for them for free.
Is it that taxes will go up to subsidize some people so they can buy insurance? If it's taxes, why focus on ACA (as opposed to Medicare, social security, public schools, etc.)? And more to the point, isn't the ACA mandate an effective way of incenting free riders to get insurance without costing the taxpayers anything?
Is it particular provisions of the ACA that you feel would cut, say, MC or MA payments to docs? But if that's it, then aren't you basically insisting that other taxpayers pay taxes (and therefore labor) for your benefit?
What exactly is the beef? I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't understand the objection.
First, I apologize, my ipad SDN quoting skills apparently were on the fritz =P. I was +1 on the post above about a 500k to 250k slash.
Now moving back to the topic at hand...
I will be starting medical school in the fall at an allopathic program, so my viewpoints (which i admit upfront) are not based from "in the field work" if you will. I believe that ACA is a step in the right direction...we shall see.
Now, my +1 to the post (see above) was agreeing that IF ACA slashed physician salaries from let's say 500k to 250k, yes I would argue. This is not because I would be unable to live off of 250k a year (that'd be ridiculous), but instead because it is a matter of principle. I would like to hope that many of us here are mainly in the field of medicine to help others (which I am), but I would be lying (and so would many others) if I said that I would still be in medicine if it paid <100k a year. There is no way with loans being as high as they are to expect a medical student/future physician to be satisfied with 100k a year, considering they most likely are having their first actual PROFESSIONAL paycheck at the age of >28 years of age.
So if you want my viewpoint, I believe that healthcare isn't a given right - but yes I do empathize with those who are uninsured and therefore I am glad to see ACA requiring coverage. I also believe, however, that physicians salaries should not be penalized, considering they make up approximately 6.5% of medical spending in the united states (this is a number cited from a previous SDN post).
So basically, I hope you see that I am not objecting to ACA. I am merely agreeing that if ACA did have the implications in the future of slashing salaries by that much, then yes, I see a problem.
To quote from the poster above...
"On average, yes. We also have arguably the highest opportunity cost and among the longest training time. When you only start practicing beyond age 30 and have hundreds of thousands of debt, you will make more money. Risk and reward.
Here's a personal example. Before my senior year in college I interned at Goldman Sachs for a summer. I was offered a position. I chose medicine, because it's what I wanted to do. I didn't really care about the money. My brother began work at Morgan Stanley after undergrad. We both discussed the hilarity of our situations. He was in the bottom third of his class. I was in the top 10%. I chose medicine. He chose finance. He now makes 6 times more than I do and is only 2 years older than me. He was surprised that physicians are currently being targeting for reimbursement cuts. Despite the market collapse, he is currently earning more than before the recession. It didn't effect him at all. With all the campaign contributions from wall street nothing has been done. My brother's situation is not unique. Look at the top universities in America, such as Harvard. The largest majors no longer consist of students planning to be physicians as in the past. They are entering finance. It has nothing to do with going into medicine for the wrong reasons. Top talent is looking elsewhere.
Before you make all physicians who complain about reimbursement cuts out to be money grubbing, ungrateful, and greedy recognize that many of us are not in medicine for the money. When you start working, have a family, have bills to pay, and get to personally feel the impact of all of the non-medical BS in medicine (insurance companies, government, etc., wondering if you will even be paid for a procedure) you will understand."
I agree completely.
Still a naive med student, I see 
