Excuse me? what part of my message makes me a bad person or an evil person? Telling people that they are bad, how immature.TheProwler said:I really hope you aren't trying to say you're mature, because you're just atrocious.
There need to be a change in US system
- Thread starter ppa93
- Start date
4
45408
Considering how there's about 16,000 seats in any given freshman class for all US med schools, multiplied by four to include M1-M4, you've got 64,000 students paying, say, an average of $25,000 a year for tuition. The resulting $1.6B is barely a dent in the total amount spent on healthcare. And remember, who's paying that tuition? Oh, yeah, the people getting the education.DrMojorisin said:
4
45408
Seriously, man, it's past your bedtime.ppa93 said:
People getting the education are paying, true. Remember, they all take out loans, and guess who is paying off their loans? Patients. Dont just say oh Med students are paying that tuition cos they arent. Patients or we the Americans.TheProwler said:Considering how there's about 16,000 seats in any given freshman class for all US med schools, multiplied by four to include M1-M4, you've got 64,000 students paying, say, an average of $25,000 a year for tuition. The resulting $1.6B is barely a dent in the total amount spent on healthcare. And remember, who's paying that tuition? Oh, yeah, the people getting the education.
4
45408
I'd have to dig her up first to tell her that, *****.ppa93 said:
4
45408
Your economics is absolutely terrible.ppa93 said:
well, may be. I am not saying it isnt. Do you know how expensive it is to go see a doctor? Thats why I told u that patients are paying off your loans. Doctors are just over charging people just because they had to take out loans.TheProwler said:
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,124
- Reaction score
- 174
I officially withdraw from this argument. I can't stand the thought of arguing with some sentimental little kid whose sole interest is video games. Especially not when I did nothing to deserve the attention.
Oh, before you comment on how you're so much older than I am...as far as I'm concerned you could be 30 and still a little kid based simply on the immaturity you're portraying every time you refresh this thread.
Oh, before you comment on how you're so much older than I am...as far as I'm concerned you could be 30 and still a little kid based simply on the immaturity you're portraying every time you refresh this thread.
4
45408
Wrong.ppa93 said:
4
45408
yeah, you're not trollingppa93 said:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
Prowler, you're correct in that the total amount spent educating physicians isn't really the problem. In fact, I believe we should be spending MORE total money educating physicians BUT we should be spending less money per physician (which is what I meant in my original post). Granted, the actual cost of education per physician will never be a very significant quantity in terms of total medical spending. However, by producing more physicians, competition will increase, thereby lowering the price of medical services and dramatically affecting total medical spending. For this to happen, the american public would have to wrench a lot of power away from the AMA, but this is nearly impossible due to the nature of the american political system (a small organized lobbying force with an intense interest is far more effective than a large disorganized body with diffused interests). So instead we have managed care plans (buyer oligopolies designed to counter provider oligopolies) and a growing number of nonphysician medical fields being created to fill the gap - NPs, DCs, PA's, PT's, DO's, and the alphabet soup keeps growing. Based on a large body of evidence, I believe that these health professionals provide a quality of care that is equivalent to MDs for the vast majority of patients. The AMA has brought the US to its knees economically by convincing legislators that we need to spend a fortune to protect the quality of care in the US. Based on WHO reports, though, nationalized health systems throughout the world have provided better quality of care, as well as ubiquitous coverage, at a much lower cost.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2003
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 2
DrMojorisin said:
I think NP's and PA's will do a good enough job of keeping the AMA in line. The AMA is a powerful lobby, but, fortunately their special interest needs do not always coincide with those of politicians. A nationalized system sucks. The government never does a good job. As it is right now, our healthcare system is not capitalistic enough. I think a freer market would do wonders for prices and availability. Currently, the medical establishment is restricting supply and raising costs. This should be illegal, as it not only violates the free trade laws, but, restricting the supply of medical care is unethical.
But NP's and PA's are getting more and more rights, including surgical, (plus the whole doctorate of nursing thing) , so, i estimate, in 10-15 years, the AMA will be forced to rethink its game, simply because doctors will have become such an inefficient method of providing healthcare (doctor nurse practitioners will be commonly providing the same services for less money, and this educational path is cheaper to support and cheaper to enroll in, plus, nurses have a more powerful congressional lobby).
Dont overestimate the AMA's lobbyist impact. It doesnt necessarily come from congressional lobbying, rather, from smart management of the power that they already have. The various accrediting bodies have already been given free reign by the government -- they are the ones who are setting most of the rules and regulations. Nurses, on the other hand, are getting legislation passed left and right.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
Don't be stupid, guys. This is off topic and insulting. What kind of a scientist makes baseless assertions? And What kind of a future-doctor pompously airs contentious gripes with no respect for context or audience?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry about including DOs as nonphysicians. I included DOs in the list primarily because they are a lobby that has risen to stand against the concept of MD monopolized health care, an action that I support. At this point, DOs have definitely gained political acceptance as "physicians."
On the other hand, I can see why MD's might resent this. By referring to both disciplines as physicians, it implies that they are equivalent, which (most MDs feel) they aren't. I wonder how DOs will react after NPs start referring to themselves as physicians and changing public perceptions with their powerful lobby? Why arent' DCs considered physicians? After all, they do have doctoral level degrees and provide health care. Perhaps their lobby will begin to seek physician status as well. If you define physician loosely enough, even a physician's assistant is a type of physician (he is performing the work of a physician). Eventually, I suspect all health care providers, including nurses, will be under the umbrella term "physician," and DO's will fight this transformation every step of the way, just as MDs have resisted it thus far. Just remember: Each of these lobbies is lobbying primarily for the well being of its own members, not the well being of patients.
I'm really surprised only one person here spoke out against nationalization... I'd expect nearly everyone here besides me to be against it. Well, I don't think you all will have to worry about it happening anyways. The iron triangle of physicians, bureaucrats, and special interests is stronger than ever with all these new pseudophysician lobbies coming into the fold. It is now nearly impossible to restructure health care through government legislation in the US.
On the other hand, I can see why MD's might resent this. By referring to both disciplines as physicians, it implies that they are equivalent, which (most MDs feel) they aren't. I wonder how DOs will react after NPs start referring to themselves as physicians and changing public perceptions with their powerful lobby? Why arent' DCs considered physicians? After all, they do have doctoral level degrees and provide health care. Perhaps their lobby will begin to seek physician status as well. If you define physician loosely enough, even a physician's assistant is a type of physician (he is performing the work of a physician). Eventually, I suspect all health care providers, including nurses, will be under the umbrella term "physician," and DO's will fight this transformation every step of the way, just as MDs have resisted it thus far. Just remember: Each of these lobbies is lobbying primarily for the well being of its own members, not the well being of patients.
I'm really surprised only one person here spoke out against nationalization... I'd expect nearly everyone here besides me to be against it. Well, I don't think you all will have to worry about it happening anyways. The iron triangle of physicians, bureaucrats, and special interests is stronger than ever with all these new pseudophysician lobbies coming into the fold. It is now nearly impossible to restructure health care through government legislation in the US.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2000
- Messages
- 39,952
- Reaction score
- 18,717
riceman04 said:
Back to the original topic...
In most other countries outside of the US, the "MD" is a research degree which usually requires a number of years in practice and documented research.
Therefore, a foreign MD is not considered equivalent to the US MD, but rather more advanced. Most other countries award the undergraduate medical degree as a MBBS, BMBS, MBBSCh, etc.
In addition, they only do 1 internship, but this may often be followed by another House Officer year or more as a Registrar or RMO (Registered Medical Officer) before applying for specialty training. Therefore, all physicians spend a couple of years doing general medicine before going onto further training in Gen Surg, Ob-Gyn, Family (General) Practice etc.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2004
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 1
Blah blah blah blah. The fact is, you came on to this forum complaining that the US system is too hard (not efficient). I am saying that you are a lazy bum. Is that a temper? No. Despite all the safeguards and hoops people have to jump through to get into medical school, there is still a proportionally large group of students who realize after their 3rd year that they made the wrong the decision and quit (if not sooner). A more efficient (loser) system would only enhance those numbers with people who ordinarily would have dropped the dream long before an acceptance. I would be willing to argue that the system may be too easy. Not easy in getting in, but easy in getting an MD. In England, if I am not mistaken, you must publish before graduating.ppa93 said:
The fact remains, anyone who is looking for shortcuts in their life's ambition is a loser. That is why get rich quick scams do so well here in the US.
you really need to calm down dude. you arent getting what I am saying and u kept calling me loser. Just read what u have written and I can tell that u were extremely angry. I hope you never become a doctor cos u can actually kill hundreds of people with ur temper. 18 years old first year med school student in UK is more calm than you for sure. Maturity? God bless you man. Just do what is the best for you. Medicine isnt for you , so back off.Obedeli said:
I am not looking for short chut, but the efficient way. According to WHO, US doctors suck regardless of their age. May be if US elminate doctors like you, then it should get better. Effiency is very important. got it? Seriously, God shouldnt permit you to become one.
I didnt say US system is too hard, I said it is not efficient okay? To me US schools are very easy. I have 4.0 science gpa, and I want it more challenging. They have to make it efficient okay? Thats why it has to change.
US system allow idiots to become doctors who will make mistakes in the future. An example of which will be you. Medicine isnt for everyone and those who dont have high grades, they shouldnt be doctors regardless of their premedical experience.
Besides I am not trying to get rich quick anyway. If I wanna get rich, I will go do business instead. I just wanna let u know for ur own sake.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2003
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 2
Obedeli said:
We're not looking for shortcuts. It really should be easier. Not because we're lazy, but because it is a waste. It is a waste of talent - spending slave years learning inapplicable knowledge, and a waste of applicants who would have made great doctors. Why were they denied? Just because the medical establishment has selfish quotas and wants to make a rat race to see who will be given this reward. Look at NP's and PA's. They are doing the same things doctors are doing, and they are doing them very well. Hmm. time it took them, effort it took them -- these are realistic for this type of job. The 11-14 years and $300,000 (all told), and the difficulty of admission are really a shame especially when the US needs more doctors and there are tons of qualified people to do it who could do it just as well with less training (ie: more efficient training, like PA's!!).
A career shouldnt be about only letting people in who agree to put up with the bull****. You say that a more efficient system would let people in who wouldnt be *as* dedicated. You're absolutely right. If it were easier it would let in plenty of people who have talent and desire to become doctors but didnt want to put up with the bs of the old system. Is this letting in losers and get-rich-quick scheme people? No, its letting in more intelligent, realistic people, where as the current system selects for only the most stubborn.
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 0
ok, dude, calm down.....all i'm saying is that maybe in europe, high school is a lot more structured than high school in america....i'd be willing to accept that. maybe european high schools prepare people well enough and give you enough exposure to different fields to make a decision about your career.
as someone previously posted, high school in america just doesn't do that....and i don't think it's fair to blame medical schools for the inadequacy of american high schools. most people leave high school here having either no idea what they want to do, or having a good idea but changing their mind later on during college....if people in europe go to medical school right after high school and stick with it and dont' drop out, then european high schools do a good job of preparing people for their careers.
as someone previously posted, high school in america just doesn't do that....and i don't think it's fair to blame medical schools for the inadequacy of american high schools. most people leave high school here having either no idea what they want to do, or having a good idea but changing their mind later on during college....if people in europe go to medical school right after high school and stick with it and dont' drop out, then european high schools do a good job of preparing people for their careers.
ppa93 said:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 362
- Reaction score
- 2
More and more, it doesn't have to take as long to get any kind of degree; I am acquainted with several highly accomplished high-school age students who start community college in while still in their teen years, then transfer to a four year. Some of these are "concurrent students" (they go to high school, but take college classes as well) as young as fourteen or fifteen.
One of these people I know was homeschooled, went to a junior college at sixteen, and was accepted to Yale, as a junior, at eighteen although she has decided to go to UC Davis! I know this person's mother and can have *her* vouch for this, if you doubt me.
I was a concurrent high school/college student at 14... back when nobody had even heard of this program (which exists in most California community college destricts), although it was only one class, in geology, and it is FAR more common now than it was when I was doing it; I've met at least one fifteen or sixteen year old every semester I have been in school in recent years. I did much better in the community college class than I did in high school; I could focus on school and not worry about somebody putting gum in my hair in class. My high school was more like a zoo than a school, and the teachers were zookeepers.
Yes. Some of these were pre-med.
Concurrent enrollment, homeschooling, or taking the equivelancy (and then going to junior college) are sometimes the only way a young person can get a good education, in areas that lack a gifted program, AP classes, or good college preparatory education.
One of these people I know was homeschooled, went to a junior college at sixteen, and was accepted to Yale, as a junior, at eighteen although she has decided to go to UC Davis! I know this person's mother and can have *her* vouch for this, if you doubt me.
I was a concurrent high school/college student at 14... back when nobody had even heard of this program (which exists in most California community college destricts), although it was only one class, in geology, and it is FAR more common now than it was when I was doing it; I've met at least one fifteen or sixteen year old every semester I have been in school in recent years. I did much better in the community college class than I did in high school; I could focus on school and not worry about somebody putting gum in my hair in class. My high school was more like a zoo than a school, and the teachers were zookeepers.
Yes. Some of these were pre-med.
Concurrent enrollment, homeschooling, or taking the equivelancy (and then going to junior college) are sometimes the only way a young person can get a good education, in areas that lack a gifted program, AP classes, or good college preparatory education.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 0
As someone who went to HS in Europe (the UK) I can tell you that it does not better prepare you to decide your career. All it does is discourage people from going to university and make them feel stupid, I can't tell you the number of people I knew who thought their careers were over because half way through A levels they weren't getting the grades they needed. How ludicrous to think your career goals are dashed at age 17? I've known I wanted to become a doctor since I was born and I still decided to leave the UK and do the longer route in the US. (BTW I did not apply to any universities in England so I have no idea how I would have fared in the Brit application process)
