unionizing of doctors

[Dr Roboto]

---

Members do not see this ad.

But the amount of money that doctors do make does not seem to be too stifled by their medical school debt, since most of the doctors I see tend to have nice cars, nice houses, and nice toys to play with.

Are these doctors in primary care?

If you go into being a doctor, then it SHOULD mean that you're willing to do anything for your patient, including possibly having to live in an apartment for your first year or so (try not to let the shock hurt you).

I think that's a tad overly ideal. Why are doctors put on a pedestal and worshipped like heroes? Why are we expected to make such sacrifices? At the end of the day, it's still a job.

 

[Dienekes]

Hahaha. Gotta make sure we differentiate between the two dienekes characters on this thread.

I really hope they come up with another one of those "change your screen name" opportunities soon.

 

[Tin Man]

Yeah the British system works just fine...until it's time to marginalize overweight people and those who have certain conditions due to smoking. I guess it's ok if the government decides if people should die or not...as long as it's not someone with an MD (or the equivalent of)

I don't study economics, so I don't pretend to know how to implement a "socialized medicine" system. Ideally, it's a good system, but when put into play, it would take a lot of work.

However, it irritates me when the main rebuttal against such a system was "doctors will make less money." They'll make less money, but they'll still be considered wealthy when compared to most of the WORLD.

The entire "socialized medicine" bit was off-topic, anywho.

So just because they have these things, that's an indicator that they don't have significant debt? I know people who have "nice cars", "nice" houses, and have over 300K mortgage along with 100K student loan debt and they don't necessarily make more than $90K.

Okay, you got me. I didn't take into account human stupidity.

If they're idiots and decide to waste their money on extravagances, then yes, they're going to be wealthy and in debt at the same time. Not only that, they're in debt BECAUSE they decided to live like wealthy person. You got me on that one.

Believe it or not, doctors want to make a profit too. This may be exceedingly shocking but payoff if something that most sane people consider when looking at job careers.

That's ridiculous. There are MANY jobs out there that require incredible sacrifice with very little payoff, such as the job that I wanted to do for a while as a USAF Pararescueman. I'm not trying to pull a "holier than thou" move here, but there are some people out there who do value the satisfaction of a job that is truly important than the money that comes from it. It has nothing to do with sanity; maybe just personality, but not sanity.

And, once again, there are MANY more careers available to those who want to make a lot of money and have the brains to do it. You want money, then find a job that doesn't take up the spot in medical school to someone who is willing to NOT make as much money and put three times the effort into it.

Of course that's comparative to the salaries of other people. But of course you forgot to factor out what comes out of that 120K. I'm sure the majority of the workforce doesn't pay out in expenses what doctors do.

Maybe, but once again, you're forgetting that, according to the website I cited earlier and most other websites I've found (Google it yourself), the $120K is the LOWEST on the list (besides Ambulatory care), and is only common in those working in their first two years. After two years, they're making close to $200K.

Tell that to general practictioners who have private practice AND work at hospitals part time in order to make ends meet. I personally know two that do. And they will laugh in your face for making such statements.

I'm just going off of what is considered to be the "norm" (http://www.allied-physicians.com/sal...n-salaries.htm). For there to be a norm, there's got to be those on the outskirts, and I guess I feel sorry for them. But their circumstances or what landed them in that position is unknown, and to say that ALL doctors deserve more money for what they do than the normal $200K a year is a bit far-fetched.

 

[Dienekes]

I'm just going off of what is considered to be the "norm" (http://www.allied-physicians.com/sal...n-salaries.htm). For there to be a norm, there's got to be those on the outskirts, and I guess I feel sorry for them. But their circumstances or what landed them in that position is unknown, and to say that ALL doctors deserve more money for what they do than the normal $200K a year is a bit far-fetched.

You are falling victim to what Mark Twain was talking about when he said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." You are probably looking at the mean which is prone to being skewed by persons with outlying salaries (those who own multi-physician practices, work in high volume areas, etc). This is one reason why if you look at differing sources of information on salaries you can see a significant (>20%) variability in reported salaries.

It's not your fault that you didn't see the shortcomings of your data source; you simply didn't know any better. As I used to tell my students- I can forgive ignorance, but once you have been told better and still refuse to admit when you are wrong, then you are being stupid, which is unforgivable in my book (and the book of many other people as well).

 

[ColKurtz]

Maybe, but once again, you're forgetting that, according to the website I cited earlier and most other websites I've found (Google it yourself), the $120K is the LOWEST on the list (besides Ambulatory care), and is only common in those working in their first two years. After two years, they're making close to $200K.

The vast majority of physicians provide ambulatory care. What to you think outpatient visits are?

 

[Quadratic]

However, it irritates me when the main rebuttal against such a system was "doctors will make less money." They'll make less money, but they'll still be considered wealthy when compared to most of the WORLD.

The point is that people on here aren't comparing their futures to "most of the world," because "most of the world" isn't making the sacrifices that doctors make. "Most of the world" isn't going to jump out of bed at 3 AM to go back to the hospital to perform a surgery. "Most of the world" isn't dishing out exceedingly high malpractice insurance premium payments to have covering in the likely event that they get sued. You make the job seem worry free, as if all doctors should have concern about is their patients. That isn't the world we live in.

That's ridiculous. There are MANY jobs out there that require incredible sacrifice with very little payoff, such as the job that I wanted to do for a while as a USAF Pararescueman. I'm not trying to pull a "holier than thou" move here, but there are some people out there who do value the satisfaction of a job that is truly important than the money that comes from it. It has nothing to do with sanity; maybe just personality, but not sanity.[/COLOR]

Realize that some people's payoffs are different from others. Realize that not everyone is from a wealthy family (not saying you are, just making a point). The demographics have changed. More than ever, people from the lower middle and working classes are coming into the health care fields. Some of these people need this payoff because they have worked hard. When you're parents are hardworking, and your family is just getting by from paycheck to paycheck, and you hear sums of debt that's more than a house mortgage (>200K), it's a HELL of a big deal.

And, once again, there are MANY more careers available to those who want to make a lot of money and have the brains to do it. You want money, then find a job that doesn't take up the spot in medical school to someone who is willing to NOT make as much money and put three times the effort into it.

Yeah, shame on people who want to enjoy what they do for a living AND be well compensated for it.

Maybe, but once again, you're forgetting that, according to the website I cited earlier and most other websites I've found (Google it yourself), the $120K is the LOWEST on the list (besides Ambulatory care), and is only common in those working in their first two years. After two years, they're making close to $200K.

The link isn't working.

 

[Dienekes]

"Most of the world" isn't going to jump out of bed at 3 AM to go back to the hospital to perform a surgery.

Remind me again why pathology seems so damn appealing? There is no such thing as a stat autopsy.

 

[ServantOfAllah]

Strikes for physicians is extremely bad. For example, imagine a doctor goes on a strike and a little infant with a fever is not treated for his simple fever. The infant could become mentally disabled for the rest of his life if the fever stays high for a long period of time.
However, strong lobbying is the solution. Physicians have enough wealth, connections and audience that would support their cause in Washington.

 

[TehDoc]

Well they better start dishing out more reimbursement so that risk won't ever exist. (not saying that it would be acceptable)

 

[bballsuey]

Strikes for physicians is extremely bad. For example, imagine a doctor goes on a strike and a little infant with a fever is not treated for his simple fever. The infant could become mentally disabled for the rest of his life if the fever stays high for a long period of time.
However, strong lobbying is the solution. Physicians have enough wealth, connections and audience that would support their cause in Washington.

i definitely agree strikes would be extremely bad, and more importantly morally wrong. i believe health care is a right. i was just bringing it up to illustrate the extremes in other occupations. i think doctors need to be MUCH better educated in terms of lobbying. we shouldn't let bureaucrats with no medical knowledge dictate decisions that hinder the well being of patients. i started this thread to see how doctors can do this effectively since i've noticed in general: doctors are very bad in terms of social skills (the majority of doctors i have shadowed have no social skills). i think this translates a lot to doctors being treated unfairly by the media, politicians, and the healthcare industry.

 

[DrSpengler]

Strikes for physicians is extremely bad. For example, imagine a doctor goes on a strike and a little infant with a fever is not treated for his simple fever. The infant could become mentally disabled for the rest of his life if the fever stays high for a long period of time.
However, strong lobbying is the solution. Physicians have enough wealth, connections and audience that would support their cause in Washington.

That is a ridiculous thought. Docs have nowhere near the financial resources to compete with the lobbyists for managed care companies and pharm companies - the groups responsible for most of the problems / increased cost in healthcare. One of the ways healthcare could improve is if docs had more leverage against the insurance companies but that's never going to happen as long as they have law makers on their payrolls.

 

[Boblazar]

http://www.seedwiki.com/accounts/web_uapd_23280/Budrys Speech.pdf

- very good article regarding physician unions.

 

[Drogba]

The point is that people on here aren't comparing their futures to "most of the world," because "most of the world" isn't making the sacrifices that doctors make. "Most of the world" isn't going to jump out of bed at 3 AM to go back to the hospital to perform a surgery. "Most of the world" isn't dishing out exceedingly high malpractice insurance premium payments to have covering in the likely event that they get sued. You make the job seem worry free, as if all doctors should have concern about is their patients. That isn't the world we live in.

Please, spare us the entitlement speech. Most doctors aren't going to do that either. In fact those that are (gen/trauma surg for example) most likely are going to be making less than those that wont (derm etc). Doctors aren't paid based on how much they sacrifice. That isn't the world we live in.

 

[Drogba]

That is a ridiculous thought. Docs have nowhere near the financial resources to compete with the lobbyists for managed care companies and pharm companies - the groups responsible for most of the problems / increased cost in healthcare. One of the ways healthcare could improve is if docs had more leverage against the insurance companies but that's never going to happen as long as they have law makers on their payrolls.

Health care costs were increasing before managed care. In fact thats why managed care came in to existence. Instead of doing that they've just added another cost to the equation.

 

[MossPoh]

A lot more dead people....seriously

Check out the Marburgerbund. It can be done safely. The vast majority of cases are not life or death.

I know you guys think all out writer strike type stuff but there is a middle ground type strike. German doctors have done it several time with tons of success and no patient harm. They march and strike for conditions that most of us would go "Wow, that sounds nice". I don't feel like going all into it. If you want to see a model doctor strike, check out the Marburgerbund and what they've done. Everyone is entitled to what they believe but if you look at what US doctors go through compared to most other major companies, it is A LOT more for only slightly more pay (for sub-specialities). I do think doctors should be unionized. Teachers, cops, truck drivers, writers, etc. they all get unions. Why is it suddenly not right for doctors to be able to have some entity struggle for our rights? The insurance companies and government really prey on the idea that we always want to help our patients and what not. Doctors bitch and moan about this stuff behind closed doors, but they don't get together and say "enough". I fully intend to do what is best for my patients, and that involves not being overworked, strungout, and fatigued for 3/4ths my life. It isn't a crime to fight for more when things get ridiculous. You ever see how much those health insurance people near the top make? Heck, the mid level manager type people? More money flows around there than it does with the people who matter in the scenario. (doctors, nurses, pas, patients, etc.) I just get frustrated. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing to me. This is making the distribution fair. You can tell me to spare the self entitlement, but most people don't realize how many hours are put in. Relative to the amount of work physicians tend to do, the pay is on the low side. It is a sheer quantity thing. People have no idea about that. All they see is the 6 figures. Doctors can only ignore this for so long. Just wait for the babyboomers to kick into full swing retirement. Then things will get real fun.

 

[Tin Man]

The point is that people on here aren't comparing their futures to "most of the world," because "most of the world" isn't making the sacrifices that doctors make. "Most of the world" isn't going to jump out of bed at 3 AM to go back to the hospital to perform a surgery. "Most of the world" isn't dishing out exceedingly high malpractice insurance premium payments to have covering in the likely event that they get sued. You make the job seem worry free, as if all doctors should have concern about is their patients. That isn't the world we live in.

Most of the world won't, maybe, but there are people who are paid a LOT less than doctors who would (firefighters, EMT's, Coast Guard, etc). It's true that they aren't paying into malpractice, but, once again, there have been thousands and thousands of doctors before us that have been paying into that insurance on less than the numbers we're even talking about right now. It CAN be done.

Realize that some people's payoffs are different from others. Realize that not everyone is from a wealthy family (not saying you are, just making a point). The demographics have changed. More than ever, people from the lower middle and working classes are coming into the health care fields. Some of these people need this payoff because they have worked hard. When you're parents are hardworking, and your family is just getting by from paycheck to paycheck, and you hear sums of debt that's more than a house mortgage (>200K), it's a HELL of a big deal.

Yes, it's a big deal, but that's why doctors get paid as much as they do. We aren't arguing whether or not doctors should get a dock in pay. I haven't brought that up once. What I am arguing is that doctors DO make enough to live their lives, as evidenced by the 60,000 new doctors a year who have been getting on with their lives after medical school. What we're arguing is whether or not the doctors should have a right to complain that they AREN'T making enough money, which is the question that the OP posted. And because you have only brought up the few doctors you know versus all the information I was able to find just through Google, you have yet to prove that doctors NEED (as in need enough to go on strike) a pay raise rather than being able to take what they've been getting by on for the last few decades.

Yeah, shame on people who want to enjoy what they do for a living AND be well compensated for it.

What exactly do people enjoy about medicine if it isn't putting the patient first? If you put the patient ahead of yourself, it generally follows that the money would come second. Yet, the patient certainly would not be in the minds of the doctors who decide to unionize; the DOCTORS would be in the doctor's minds.

So what exactly about medicine are people getting into medicine for if it is not to help the patients? What is there to enjoy? And if there is, doesn't this lead right back up to the patient coming first? And if the patient comes first, shouldn't the act of unionizing just to get more money at the risk of the patients seem somewhat contradicting of the reasons you SAY you're getting into medicine?

The link isn't working.

Here. I'll repost.
http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm

You are falling victim to what Mark Twain was talking about when he said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." You are probably looking at the mean which is prone to being skewed by persons with outlying salaries (those who own multi-physician practices, work in high volume areas, etc). This is one reason why if you look at differing sources of information on salaries you can see a significant (>20%) variability in reported salaries.

It's not your fault that you didn't see the shortcomings of your data source; you simply didn't know any better. As I used to tell my students- I can forgive ignorance, but once you have been told better and still refuse to admit when you are wrong, then you are being stupid, which is unforgivable in my book (and the book of many other people as well).

Well, there can't be anything worse than to not be forgiven by a sage, wise teacher such as yourself. Thank you, oh knowledgeable one, for imparting your valuable advice on why facts are bad.

Come on. I've heard this argument WAY too many times. It basically says that, "You can't find any facts to back up your opinion, because all facts out there are lies, so therefore, I must be right." You're going to have to do better than that. All of the other data I was able to find on Google correlates pretty closely with the link. You can look it up yourself.

 

[Quadratic]

Please, spare us the entitlement speech. Most doctors aren't going to do that either. In fact those that are (gen/trauma surg for example) most likely are going to be making less than those that wont (derm etc). Doctors aren't paid based on how much they sacrifice. That isn't the world we live in.

Yes...i forgot that the majority of doctors specialize in ROAD field. Oh wait...

It's no entitlement speech, and if you don't understand that a good percentage of docs, especially those in family practice and internal medicine get called on a religious basis due to their patients abrupt illness, or their sudden hospitalization, if you don't understand the ramifications behind that then maybe you shouldn't be participating in this debate. Again, this was a normal occurrence for two family practitioners I have worked under. When you get some real experience under people who work in primary care fields, come back and post again.

Most of the world won't, maybe, but there are people who are paid a LOT less than doctors who would (firefighters, EMT's, Coast Guard, etc). It's true that they aren't paying into malpractice, but, once again, there have been thousands and thousands of doctors before us that have been paying into that insurance on less than the numbers we're even talking about right now. It CAN be done.

Yeah and I'm willing to bet that they weren't getting sued as often either.

Yes, it's a big deal, but that's why doctors get paid as much as they do. We aren't arguing whether or not doctors should get a dock in pay. I haven't brought that up once. What I am arguing is that doctors DO make enough to live their lives, as evidenced by the 60,000 new doctors a year who have been getting on with their lives after medical school. What we're arguing is whether or not the doctors should have a right to complain that they AREN'T making enough money, which is the question that the OP posted. And because you have only brought up the few doctors you know versus all the information I was able to find just through Google, you have yet to prove that doctors NEED (as in need enough to go on strike) a pay raise rather than being able to take what they've been getting by on for the last few decades.

Indeed. How foolish of me to challenge Google and it's listings of ever inflated salaries with my real world experience.

What exactly do people enjoy about medicine if it isn't putting the patient first? If you put the patient ahead of yourself, it generally follows that the money would come second. Yet, the patient certainly would not be in the minds of the doctors who decide to unionize; the DOCTORS would be in the doctor's minds.

Medicine isn't about being your patients' friend. It's about fixing disorder in the human body. I can do that and worry about my own well being simultaneously.

So what exactly about medicine are people getting into medicine for if it is not to help the patients? What is there to enjoy? And if there is, doesn't this lead right back up to the patient coming first? And if the patient comes first, shouldn't the act of unionizing just to get more money at the risk of the patients seem somewhat contradicting of the reasons you SAY you're getting into medicine?

Um...the actual medicine itself.

 

[crazylegs]

A lot more dead people....seriously

actually, it might not. I heard about this a while back and almost found it amusing ...

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561


When the docs in Israel 'went on strike', (and I quote) "The number of funerals we have performed has fallen drastically".

 

[Tin Man]

Yeah and I'm willing to bet that they weren't getting sued as often either.

...Are you kidding me? My volunteer work puts me around a LOT of EMT, firefighters, and search-and-rescue personnel. Do you have any idea how many lawsuits these people face for unnecessary destruction, unnecessary procedures, and so on? This is AMERICA we're talking about. Everyone can get sued, especially if you're performing a service people can easily take advantage of you for. And firefighters don't have near the ability to fight legal battles that doctors do.

But all of this is neither here nor there.

Indeed. How foolish of me to challenge Google and it's listings of ever inflated salaries with my real world experience.

Your "real world experience" represents a very SMALL portion of the world, my friend. It's based on the people who know you; at the very largest, it's based off of the people in your community, what the economy is like in your area, what sort of work there is for physicians in your area, etc. Your "real world experience" is certainly not indicative of the way things are. I have "real world experience" that make claims total opposite to yours. Unfortunately, the internet is the widest demographic population that we can access, so we have to use what's available. So unless you feel like doing a survey yourself to every single doctor in the US (or even a fair ratio of doctors), then Google wipes the floor with your community doctor friends.

Oh... and I would venture to bet that the source is pretty reliable...

Medicine isn't about being your patients' friend. It's about fixing disorder in the human body. I can do that and worry about my own well being simultaneously.

Fine. Don't think of the patient as your friend. Think of the disease as your mortal enemy. Whatever works for you. The point is this; if doctors go on strike, it means that they are refusing to care for patients. As a result, whatever the way you want to think of your patients, you are NOT putting the patient above yourself (isn't that in that hippopotamus oath or something?). You are putting money above the patient. As I said, I can fully understand that doctors need to be able to survive and live in a certain degree of comfort to ensure the mental and physical health necessary to care for patients to the utmost degree. But we aren't talking about the very survival of doctors; we're talking about making doctors MORE money because they feel like they deserve more. And beyond that, they're willing to risk patients in order to get that money.

Tsk tsk.

Um...the actual medicine itself.

That's not an answer. If you enjoy MAKING medicine, be a pharmacist. If you enjoy STUDYING medicine, be a researcher. If you enjoy DESIGNING medicine, be a chemist. If you actually want to help people, then you can be a doctor. But deciding to whine about how your +-$200K isn't enough for you does not show a willingness to help people; it shows a willingness to help them so long as you get what you want. THAT'S the difference.

 

[TehDoc]

You give me a headache Tin Man.

 

[Quadratic]

Are you kidding me? My volunteer work puts me around a LOT of EMT, firefighters, and search-and-rescue personnel. Do you have any idea how many lawsuits these people face for unnecessary destruction, unnecessary procedures, and so on? This is AMERICA we're talking about. Everyone can get sued, especially if you're performing a service people can easily take advantage of you for. And firefighters don't have near the ability to fight legal battles that doctors do.

You forget the fact that when these services get sued, 9/10 it's the village, town, or city receiving the lawsuit. Such is not the case here, and is therefore unapplicable.

Nice try though.

Your "real world experience" represents a very SMALL portion of the world, my friend. It's based on the people who know you; at the very largest, it's based off of the people in your community, what the economy is like in your area, what sort of work there is for physicians in your area, etc. Your "real world experience" is certainly not indicative of the way things are. I have "real world experience" that make claims total opposite to yours. Unfortunately, the internet is the widest demographic population that we can access, so we have to use what's available. So unless you feel like doing a survey yourself to every single doctor in the US (or even a fair ratio of doctors), then Google wipes the floor with your community doctor friends.

No it doesn't. You can type in any particular kind of career path or choice into google and it will send you to websites saying that the market is increasing for people in <insert x, y, z> fields. Your google results mean ****. And if you actually had real world experience, why haven't you cited any? Having a doctor for a neighbor and seeing him drive a BMW isn't real world experience.

Oh... and I would venture to bet that the source is pretty reliable...

And your bet would come up short, just as everything else you've posted.

Fine. Don't think of the patient as your friend. Think of the disease as your mortal enemy. Whatever works for you. The point is this; if doctors go on strike, it means that they are refusing to care for patients. As a result, whatever the way you want to think of your patients, you are NOT putting the patient above yourself (isn't that in that hippopotamus oath or something?).

The hippocratic oath also states that abortions shouldn't be performed. Judging by the number of abortions performed on an hourly basis, I'd say the full effect of the hippocratic oath is dead.

You are putting money above the patient. As I said, I can fully understand that doctors need to be able to survive and live in a certain degree of comfort to ensure the mental and physical health necessary to care for patients to the utmost degree. But we aren't talking about the very survival of doctors; we're talking about making doctors MORE money because they feel like they deserve more. And beyond that, they're willing to risk patients in order to get that money.

Yeah. Shame on people who try to fight back against a system that is designed to screw them. I don't know what the hell they are thinking 👎

That's not an answer. If you enjoy MAKING medicine, be a pharmacist. If you enjoy STUDYING medicine, be a researcher. If you enjoy DESIGNING medicine, be a chemist. If you actually want to help people, then you can be a doctor. But deciding to whine about how your +-$200K isn't enough for you does not show a willingness to help people; it shows a willingness to help them so long as you get what you want. THAT'S the difference.

I wasn't aware that doctors were supposed to become de-humanized. But thanks to you, oh foolish and unexperienced one, I have seen the light.

 

[DaTruMD]

Tell that to general practictioners who have private practice AND work at hospitals part time in order to make ends meet. I personally know two that do. And they will laugh in your face for making such statements.

Laugh they might but you should not use terms like "make ends meet" which implies a more serious and grave financial circumstance. There are plenty of families who make much less than doctors and are still able to "make ends meet." Not to put those doctors on blast, but this could mean that those doctors aren't conscious of their spendings, lavishing on things that aren't really necessities for living, or expecting too much luxuries in their lives. I may be wrong about this but I'm just speculating as to the reasons why they are having to "make ends meet."

Besides, if you use "make ends meet" for people who make more than $100,000 a year, what phrase would you use for those families who make less than $10,000 a year?

 

[plauto]

What exactly do people enjoy about medicine if it isn't putting the patient first? If you put the patient ahead of yourself, it generally follows that the money would come second. Yet, the patient certainly would not be in the minds of the doctors who decide to unionize; the DOCTORS would be in the doctor's minds.

So what exactly about medicine are people getting into medicine for if it is not to help the patients? What is there to enjoy? And if there is, doesn't this lead right back up to the patient coming first? And if the patient comes first, shouldn't the act of unionizing just to get more money at the risk of the patients seem somewhat contradicting of the reasons you SAY you're getting into medicine?

Medicine itself! I am a classical musician. While I do care about my audience, I mostly care about my music. The technicalities, the nuances, the practical aspect of playing an instrument and letting my soul speak thru it is what really turns me on, not the audience.
Medicine is the same. While everything we do is ultimately aimed to better the patient, I am mostly turned on by medicine itself, surgical techniques, anatomy and physiology of the human body etc. etc.
In the very moment you give yourself to medicine this way, you are actually putting your patients first.

And you (and other people on this board) have no idea what unions do. You think that unions only want more money. That is only perhaps 5% of what unions do. Get a real job, have a family depend on it, and then be told your position is cut because of outsourcing or because your superior doesn't like the way you walk. Be told you have to work an extra hour a day with no extra pay because they are firing people so your boss can keep driving his jaguar. Then come back here and we can talk like adults about unions. Up to that point you have no say whatsoever about the IMPORTANCE of unions.

Also....come on guys!!!!! If doctors strike don't you think that ERs and emergencies would be guaranteed? Nobody is going to die if doctors strike.
The guy who needs his gallbladder to be removed is going to have to wait an extra day. That would be about it! I hope doctors will eventually wake up and fight together instead of being everyone for him/herself.

 

[Tin Man]

You forget the fact that when these services get sued, 9/10 it's the village, town, or city receiving the lawsuit. Such is not the case here, and is therefore unapplicable.

Do you honestly think the city steps in and takes the blame? Hell no! If the city gets that lawsuit, then they aren't going to just take the loss. The firefighter could lose his job, the EMT could face criminal charges (in a LOT of cases involving "battery"), etc. The city might get the bill, but the person responsible (or allegedly responsible) for the bill is the one who's head will be rolling at the end of the day, no matter how stupid the problem was. It's just as dangerous of a world out there for the lower-tier community workers, and to think that they don't face most of the problems that doctors do shows a wee of inexperience on YOUR part.

Once again, that was an adorable attempt, but I think that I honestly have the upper hand when it comes to talking about the lower-class of public servants here...

No it doesn't. You can type in any particular kind of career path or choice into google and it will send you to websites saying that the market is increasing for people in <insert x, y, z> fields. Your google results mean ****. And if you actually had real world experience, why haven't you cited any? Having a doctor for a neighbor and seeing him drive a BMW isn't real world experience.

So... basically you're saying that no matter what tangible evidence I show you to prove my point, you aren't going to believe it?

Yeah.

And I've already said why I haven't cited my experiences. Because I am, for one, intelligent enough to realize that the ten doctors in my area don't constitute the entirety of the US, so anything I can say from my experiences for an issue like this is just as useless as your experiences. You have to take it from the widest demographic range. But I guess since you aren't willing to take Google...

I mean... honestly. How can you get any more credible than "allied-physcians.com"? "MDSalaries.com"? Are you really willing to be so narrow-minded that even though there seem to be countless reputable sites disclaiming your beliefs, you're still willing to ignore them and tell me they aren't valid?

Huh.

Find some statistics that back up your side, and then we can have a debate about validity. But until you do, I think it would be safe to say that physicians participating in a huge survey from around the entire US on an extremely reputable website about their salary per specialty outweigh your water-cooler banter.

And your bet would come up short, just as everything else you've posted.

You're on. Prove to us that "allied-physicians.com" is made up of a bunch of lying people with no MD degree. Otherwise, you're just using the ridiculous tactic of saying that you won't believe any evidence unless you see it directly. If that's the case, then you have absolutely no grounds to be debating over an internet forum at all.

The hippocratic oath also states that abortions shouldn't be performed. Judging by the number of abortions performed on an hourly basis, I'd say the full effect of the hippocratic oath is dead.

Weak. You and I both know that abortion is so highly contested that no one can prove one way or the other if the oath applies to the mother's rights or the child (if the fetus is actually a child or not is a whole 'nuther debate). That is COMPLETELY different than telling a patient, "Yeah... I am having problems paying for a house AND my school debts at the same time... and I really don't want to live in an apartment anymore... so I hope this prescription lasts you a while, because I'm gonna be gone for a few months...".

Yeah. Shame on people who try to fight back against a system that is designed to screw them. I don't know what the hell they are thinking

Fighting's fine so long as you avoid the collateral damage. In this case, the combatants are also responsible for keeping the civilian population in the war alive and healthy.

Hire soldiers (lawyers) to fight your wars. That's how wars are fought. Don't let other people suffer for it.

I wasn't aware that doctors were supposed to become de-humanized. But thanks to you, oh foolish and unexperienced one, I have seen the light.

I wasn't aware that doctors were supposed to dehumanize patients by being willing to sacrifice care towards them for money. I must be foolish and... un... inexperienced to think that patients are people, and that doctors have an obligation by donning a white coat to help them.

 

[Drogba]

Yes...i forgot that the majority of doctors specialize in ROAD field. Oh wait...

It's no entitlement speech, and if you don't understand that a good percentage of docs, especially those in family practice and internal medicine get called on a religious basis due to their patients abrupt illness, or their sudden hospitalization, if you don't understand the ramifications behind that then maybe you shouldn't be participating in this debate. Again, this was a normal occurrence for two family practitioners I have worked under. When you get some real experience under people who work in primary care fields, come back and post again.

.

Get over yourself man. You think you are the only one who has worked with a physician on these boards? Last I checked internists don't peform surgery during the day let alone at 3am and a majority of FPs don't do anything surgical either as they drop OB from their practice. Its also possible to minimize your call days per month especially as you get more senior in a practice. Doctors aren't getting woken up every night or on random nights to "go perform surgery at 3am." They are on call a limited number of nights and may or may not be called in to the hospital on many of these nights based on their practice environments.

My impression is there is a whole lot of ways to tailor your practice to the basic lifestyle you want if you are flexible with where you work and how much you are paid depending on the specialty. And my point still stands that the ones NOT doing this are the ones making the MOST money. Your salary is in not directly linked to how bad you have it.

 

[McLovinMD]

Check out the Marburgerbund. It can be done safely. The vast majority of cases are not life or death.

I know you guys think all out writer strike type stuff but there is a middle ground type strike. German doctors have done it several time with tons of success and no patient harm. They march and strike for conditions that most of us would go "Wow, that sounds nice". I don't feel like going all into it. If you want to see a model doctor strike, check out the Marburgerbund and what they've done. Everyone is entitled to what they believe but if you look at what US doctors go through compared to most other major companies, it is A LOT more for only slightly more pay (for sub-specialities). I do think doctors should be unionized. Teachers, cops, truck drivers, writers, etc. they all get unions. Why is it suddenly not right for doctors to be able to have some entity struggle for our rights? The insurance companies and government really prey on the idea that we always want to help our patients and what not. Doctors bitch and moan about this stuff behind closed doors, but they don't get together and say "enough". I fully intend to do what is best for my patients, and that involves not being overworked, strungout, and fatigued for 3/4ths my life. It isn't a crime to fight for more when things get ridiculous. You ever see how much those health insurance people near the top make? Heck, the mid level manager type people? More money flows around there than it does with the people who matter in the scenario. (doctors, nurses, pas, patients, etc.) I just get frustrated. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing to me. This is making the distribution fair. You can tell me to spare the self entitlement, but most people don't realize how many hours are put in. Relative to the amount of work physicians tend to do, the pay is on the low side. It is a sheer quantity thing. People have no idea about that. All they see is the 6 figures. Doctors can only ignore this for so long. Just wait for the babyboomers to kick into full swing retirement. Then things will get real fun.

👍👍👍
Tin Man, you need to quit looking at unionizing of doctors from a physician vs. patient perspective. Yes, a physician union would be of benefit to doctors, but why does that mean it has to come at the cost of patients? In fact, a union would more likely address healthcare needs such as promoting competition between insurance companies, ultimately lowering insurance premiums FOR PATIENTS. A doctor union could also lobby against frivolous lawsuits, another factor driving up the cost of healthcare FOR PATIENTS. Until someone with a patient perspective (no, not insurance companies) begins to address the country's healthcare issues, physicians and patients are both going to be screwed by the system.

 

[Tin Man]

👍👍👍
Tin Man, you need to quit looking at unionizing of doctors from a physician vs. patient perspective. Yes, a physician union would be of benefit to doctors, but why does that mean it has to come at the cost of patients? In fact, a union would more likely address healthcare needs such as promoting competition between insurance companies, ultimately lowering insurance premiums FOR PATIENTS. A doctor union could also lobby against frivolous lawsuits, another factor driving up the cost of healthcare FOR PATIENTS. Until someone with a patient perspective (no, not insurance companies) begins to address the country's healthcare issues, physicians and patients are both going to be screwed by the system.

Long term, it's a great plan. And normally I would be all over the idea of "the ends always justify the means." But what I've been addressing this entire time is the idea that doctors would go on strike in order to carry out these ideas, which would put patients in harm's way. I don't believe that doctors would walk away from life-saving surgery, or that a doctor would withhold life-saving medication from a patient. But from this arises two problems:

A) The strike wouldn't work so long as everyone knew that doctors would have a very hard time justifying letting people die, and therefore won't.

B) There would be people, especially in the areas of diagnostics, who would go unnoticed until their afflictions became real problems.

As I said earlier, if the doctors want more money, all power to them. If they can convince people to give it to them for whatever reason, then go for it. What I will not support, though, is ANY action which even remotely puts a patient in the warpath in order to carry these ideas out. If doctors feel that they deserve more money, but the only way to get that money is to sacrifice the quality of care (or the quantity), then that goes against the very nature of entering medicine. Hire lawyers, fill out petitions, use any back-door deals you feel is necessary. But to ignore a patient is contradictory to the oath of being a doctor.

My entire argument thusfar has been that doctors are NOT JUSTIFIED in saying that they are in serious enough financial trouble that they could both morally and legally just stop treating patients to make more money. They clearly (as all REAL evidence shows) make enough money to have been getting by for the last few decades. If they want more, then they can take the appropriate actions to obtain it. But striking, or taking any action that would endanger or even possibly put at risk the health of a patient is completely irresponsible, and I have not yet heard any compelling evidence to support such drastic measures.

 

[Quadratic]

Get over yourself man. You think you are the only one who has worked with a physician on these boards? Last I checked internists don't peform surgery during the day let alone at 3am and a majority of FPs don't do anything surgical either as they drop OB from their practice. Its also possible to minimize your call days per month especially as you get more senior in a practice. Doctors aren't getting woken up every night or on random nights to "go perform surgery at 3am." They are on call a limited number of nights and may or may not be called in to the hospital on many of these nights based on their practice environments.

WOW, way to take one quote from three posts ago and DWELL on it. I mean, ignore the fact that one doesn't necessarily have to do "surgery" in order to get a phone call during the night. Ignore that doctors have wives, husbands, and children that they may have to leave or in some cases wake up due the nature of the practice. As a matter of fact, ignore everything. And by the way, LESS call per night with MORE senior citizens? Yeah that's a good one. That's richer than Tin Man.

My impression is there is a whole lot of ways to tailor your practice to the basic lifestyle you want if you are flexible with where you work and how much you are paid depending on the specialty. And my point still stands that the ones NOT doing this are the ones making the MOST money. Your salary is in not directly linked to how bad you have it.

And you do realize that for primary care, your "impression" is very much bounded or restricted to a relatively very small percentage of docs in this field right? And as for your point....you don't have one. Of course that's a true statement. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever stating the opposite. However, I did state that you cannot compare a physician's job to the job of the majority of the workforce. That was the entire point, and if you don't see that, then you really need to get 1) more job experience in the real world and 2) more experience working with doctors, instead of speculating.

As for Tin Man, I'm not going to break down your posts anymore after this, But I will say this:It's a broken record and quite frankly, idiotic when you think the level of liability is the same for doctors and city officials. And no, I'm not going to accept some cheezy "allied physician" site, which has 1) updates its "professional survey" by allowing anyone to fill out this form: http://www.alliedphysicians.com/salary_posting.htm I mean, what the hell is that? Anyone can fill that damn thing out. 2) They have conveniently avoided updating their website salary page in at least 10 months 2) Has missing links everywhere, including its "contact us" page. You may feel this is a reliable source, but once again this is a sign of your naivety and inexperience. How the hell can anyone involved in any type of academia cite a dynamic statistical reference as such that cannot be verified or at least contacted by phone? So much for "tangible."

 

[McLovinMD]

Long term, it's a great plan. And normally I would be all over the idea of "the ends always justify the means." But what I've been addressing this entire time is the idea that doctors would go on strike in order to carry out these ideas, which would put patients in harm's way. I don't believe that doctors would walk away from life-saving surgery, or that a doctor would withhold life-saving medication from a patient. But from this arises two problems:

A) The strike wouldn't work so long as everyone knew that doctors would have a very hard time justifying letting people die, and therefore won't.

B) There would be people, especially in the areas of diagnostics, who would go unnoticed until their afflictions became real problems.

As I said earlier, if the doctors want more money, all power to them. If they can convince people to give it to them for whatever reason, then go for it. What I will not support, though, is ANY action which even remotely puts a patient in the warpath in order to carry these ideas out. If doctors feel that they deserve more money, but the only way to get that money is to sacrifice the quality of care (or the quantity), then that goes against the very nature of entering medicine. Hire lawyers, fill out petitions, use any back-door deals you feel is necessary. But to ignore a patient is contradictory to the oath of being a doctor.

My entire argument thusfar has been that doctors are NOT JUSTIFIED in saying that they are in serious enough financial trouble that they could both morally and legally just stop treating patients to make more money. They clearly (as all REAL evidence shows) make enough money to have been getting by for the last few decades. If they want more, then they can take the appropriate actions to obtain it. But striking, or taking any action that would endanger or even possibly put at risk the health of a patient is completely irresponsible, and I have not yet heard any compelling evidence to support such drastic measures.

I absolutely agree that a strike would be extreme, and that the current situation certainly doesn't warrant a strike. I am simply talking about the potential benefits of doctors becoming unionized, not going on strike. Organization of doctors on a large scale could accomplish a lot without compromising the care of patients.

 

[Quadratic]

Laugh they might but you should not use terms like "make ends meet" which implies a more serious and grave financial circumstance. There are plenty of families who make much less than doctors and are still able to "make ends meet." Not to put those doctors on blast, but this could mean that those doctors aren't conscious of their spendings, lavishing on things that aren't really necessities for living, or expecting too much luxuries in their lives. I may be wrong about this but I'm just speculating as to the reasons why they are having to "make ends meet."

Besides, if you use "make ends meet" for people who make more than $100,000 a year, what phrase would you use for those families who make less than $10,000 a year?

I thought I made the point that these two work in a private practice, together. And it's their overall investments that run in it. Running a private practice isn't easy, and as in any small business there can be a lot of unexpected expenses or even waste (believe it or not). And again, this applies to this situation, but also consider the fact that a good percentage of family practice docs have their own practice. Not exactly a gravy train.

 

[Drogba]

WOW, way to take one quote from three posts ago and DWELL on it. I mean, ignore the fact that one doesn't necessarily have to do "surgery" in order to get a phone call during the night. Ignore that doctors have wives, husbands, and children that they may have to leave or in some cases wake up due the nature of the practice. As a matter of fact, ignore everything. And by the way, LESS call per night with MORE senior citizens? Yeah that's a good one. That's richer than Tin Man.

Are you just inserting words into my posts now? I don't remember saying anything about senior citizens.

And you do realize that for primary care, your "impression" is very much bounded or restricted to a relatively very small percentage of docs in this field right? And as for your point....you don't have one. Of course that's a true statement. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever stating the opposite. However, I did state that you cannot compare a physician's job to the job of the majority of the workforce. That was the entire point, and if you don't see that, then you really need to get 1) more job experience in the real world and 2) more experience working with doctors, instead of speculating.

You are arguing for exceptionalism to preclude comparing physicians' earnings to other working members of society but that argument doesn't even hold within the medical community as you structure it. The uniquely stressful schedule that you identify as inherent to medicine is not shared universally and is in fact inversely related to salary in many cases. Your original post links sacrifice to justified salary. Morallistically, it might make sense to rationalize physician salaries based on perceived "sacrifice" but this is simply an irrelevant point within the context of income generation.

With your reasoning you could easily go on and say "you can't compare a police offers/teachers/firefighters/politician/etc etc job to the general work force."

 

[FemalesCANTDriv]

I just wanted to let you all know I thought this was a thread about un-ionizing of doctors. I was wondering how doctors became ionized in the first place, but then I read the thread and felt like an a$$.

 

[Drogba]

I just wanted to let you all know I thought this was a thread about un-ionizing of doctors. I was wondering how doctors became ionized in the first place, but then I read the thread and felt like an a$$.

Wouldn't that be de-ionizing? You're so silly.

 

[DrSpengler]

I just wanted to let you all know I thought this was a thread about un-ionizing of doctors. I was wondering how doctors became ionized in the first place, but then I read the thread and felt like an a$$.

Probably by adding / gaining an electron...(awkward silence)


But in all seriousness - the crux of the matter is that in order for doctors to make changes they'll have to do it without a traditional strike. Yes, all doctors striking is a great piece of leverage if could be used without coming off as heartless a-holes.

 

[west nile]

all those DOs with <3.5 gpas and <30 MCATs are killing patients left and right

I love the ignorance, funny how this is only seen in pre-meds.👎

 

[Drogba]

I love the ignorance, funny how this is only seen in pre-meds.👎

Wait. You are kidding right? Could my sarcasm be any more apparent? Did you even bother to read the rest of that post?

 

[McLovinMD]

I love the ignorance, funny how this is only seen in pre-meds.👎

Call me crazy, but I think Drogba was being facetious.

 

[west nile]

Wait. You are kidding right? Could my sarcasm be any more apparent? Did you even bother to read the rest of that post?

of course you were, but clumping all DO's into one category of below average physicians who couldn't make it into a MD school is ignorant, thats all I'm saying. Your logic is DO = Lack of brilliance.
That = 👎 in my book.

 

[west nile]

Call me crazy, but I think Drogba was being facetious.

call me crazy but you can't spell, lol.

 

[McLovinMD]

call me crazy but you can't spell, lol.

Enlighten me...what did I spell wrong?

 

[greg1184]

Who wants some popcorn folks?

 

[Drogba]

of course you were, but clumping all DO's into one category of below average physicians who couldn't make it into a MD school is ignorant, thats all I'm saying. Your logic is DO = Lack of brilliance.
That = 👎 in my book.

No my logic is that DOs lower average stats does not equal less ability even and that the category of "best and brightest" that another poster was using doesn't recognize that. Med schools could train hundreds more physicians a year without any decrease in quality of care in my opinion.

 

[McLovinMD]

of course you were, but clumping all DO's into one category of below average physicians who couldn't make it into a MD school is ignorant, thats all I'm saying. Your logic is DO = Lack of brilliance.
That = 👎 in my book.

What part of sarcasm don't you understand? He is implying the opposite.
How about west nile=lack of brilliance?

 

[west nile]

wow I really shouldn't post late at night, my bad guys. Drogba is not ignorant and McLovinMD can spell,

 

[CrepesofWrath]

nvm

 

[Tin Man]

As for Tin Man, I'm not going to break down your posts anymore after this, But I will say this:It's a broken record and quite frankly, idiotic when you think the level of liability is the same for doctors and city officials.

Wah. Give me a break.

First off, the level of liability is actually HIGHER with emergency personnel than it is with doctors. At least doctors can get consent forms signed beforehand. EMT's don't always have that opportunity, and have to do whatever is necessary (or perceived to be necessary) to save the patient's life. A fireman doesn't have time to ring the doorbell; sometimes the axe is the only way. Of course this happens with physicians as well, but except for a few spots in DoctorWorld, it is generally expected that most physicians will nearly always have the opportunity to get consent from the patient before doing any kind of procedure.

It's nice to ignore facts that are contrary to your point. First with the statistics, now with common sense of medical procedures between EMT's and physicians. I guess when you close your eyes, the world makes a whole lot more sense...

And no, I'm not going to accept some cheezy "allied physician" site, which has 1) updates its "professional survey" by allowing anyone to fill out this form: http://www.alliedphysicians.com/salary_posting.htm I mean, what the hell is that? Anyone can fill that damn thing out. 2) They have conveniently avoided updating their website salary page in at least 10 months 2) Has missing links everywhere, including its "contact us" page. You may feel this is a reliable source, but once again this is a sign of your naivety and inexperience. How the hell can anyone involved in any type of academia cite a dynamic statistical reference as such that cannot be verified or at least contacted by phone? So much for "tangible."

Yeah, well, welcome to the world wide web, buddy. It sort of runs off the same idea that SDN does. Right now, I could easily stick myself as an attending physician, and this argument probably would have been over three days ago. Would you claim that this, or ANY OTHER SITE ON THE INTERNET isn't professional simply because it is, by default, an anonymous world?

And the contact page worked fine for me. Must be a problem on your side of the computer.

And once again, you're forgetting to do that thinking thing. Did you even look at the questions on that survey? I don't think it would be anything I would be interested in filling out EVER. Why do you think that some fat thirteen year old is going to get the giggles by pretending to be a doctor by filling out an online survey with a bunch of words and concepts that he or she probably doesn't even understand? This isn't American Idol, my friend. There isn't any immediate feedback for giving dumb answers just to be funny. There's no recognition. The person can simply fill in false answers, and then walk away feeling happy all day that they tricked a system like... a survey.

And even if that WERE the case... why would any trickster say, "AH! It'd be really, really funny if I were to put in $120K as the lowest I make... heh, that'll get 'em!" Yeah... I know that if I decided that for some compelling reason I wanted to screw with the survey, I would put in a billion dollars here, five dollars there... I certainly don't think that even if I was able to find SOME happiness through tricking some internet survey about doctor salaries that I would find it in putting numbers that aren't too far off from a real doctor's salary.

Really. Do you put any thought into these arguments before spewing them at me? Or do you just say the first thing that comes into your brain bucket?

 

[ColKurtz]

http://www.akacrasher.com/stuff/matrix-******.jpg

 

[romed81]

Interesting debate so far. I am pro-unionizing, and here are a few points that I have been considering all along:
First, I would submit that no matter if you believe whether the patient or the doctor comes first, not doing anything actually is harming patients - slowly, but surely. The sad reality is that at this point in time doctors have much less control over patient management, healthcare policy, and reimbursement than they used to have before managed care; by the same token patients also have less power over making decisions regarding their healthcare choices. Insurance companies decide what group of doctors a patient can go to, what and how often procedures/labs can be perfomed, and what kind of reimbursement a doctor will receive from rendering services. A key concept that needs to be emphasized is that insurance companies have one goal only: profit. They are businesses, are run like businesses, and therefore they have the goals that any business would have - making money. I would also submit that it was the doctors' fault to allow the occurance of such a shift in healthcare.
Second, I would also argue that excessive liability/increasing number of lawsuits (good example right now being John Ritter's death) is also harming the patients, in at least 2 ways, quite related to each other. Practicing defensive medicine means performing an alarming number of unnecessary tests, which means driving up the cost of healthcare. Unnecessary tests do tend to be harmful to patients. The astronomical figure that represents the cost of medicine in this country (I'm sure some-one can look up its percentage of the GDP) also means that sooner or later patients will not be getting services that they actually need; the well is drying up. To those who are skeptical about my previous statement that we are practicing defensive medicine, I will say that if you look at the standard of care guidelines against which you are held responsible if a bad outcome were to happen, then you will realize that those guidelines themselves represent defensive medicine.
Third, I am baffled by why some of us are resistant to receiving a better reimbursement. I believe that the training we receive, the amount of education that we accummulate, the responsibility that we are willing to take, and the sheer amount of work that we are willing to perform, should be rewarded by society accordingly. However, the first ones that need to appreciate the quality of our services is actually us, physicians. It is us how fight to postpone death, to cure disease, or to alleviate pain. In an ideal society, where services rendered should be rewarded according to the true value they bring to society, we would most likely be the best reimbursed members of society - and there is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, in an ideal society, I shouldn't even ask for payment, as patients would come and pay me according to their ability in a way that shows their appreciation for my services.
Since we don't live in an ideal world, since I am tired of seeing doctors being crapped on by the insurance companies, by lawyers, and by patients themselves, I say enough is enough. I am tired of hearing ideas such as maybe we should do more lobying, or maybe the public will side with as as we have the moral advantage...and so on. We have no lobbying power against insurance companies - they have way more money; we have no lobbying against trial lawyers - the congress is made up mainly of lawyers - who in the right mind actually believes that they will turn against their collegues to take away their income. And finally, the public in this country will not side with us because we have the moral ground - they want to have that $10 co-pay and come to the ED anytime they want to, for whatever reason, and God forbid there is a possiblity of a lawsuit - you will seldom get a fair judgement from a jury of your "peers".
If we want to be able to make a change, to make things right - both for patients, and for us - it is time to take the power back. A union does not mean having to go on strike, and a strike doesn't mean letting patients die. I haven't heard of any reports from European countries (and I originally come from one), where patients were left to die because of doctors striking. But by uniting we can definitely accummulate enough power to get things to change in the right direction.

 

[RoadRunner17]

Why not just be able to countersue the lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, at least for more than what you can now, and give them something to think about? The malpractice issues seem like a one-way street, and lawyers are just feasting on doctors while doctors have no way to fight back.. lawyers should have some accountability as well.

Wishful thinking, I know, especially as with how one defines "frivolous" and all the other cans of worms that would be opened by that. But it would probably go a long way towards solving that issue if we could.

Anyway, time to go get some popcorn

 

[greg1184]

Why not just be able to countersue the lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, at least for more than what you can now, and give them something to think about? The malpractice issues seem like a one-way street, and lawyers are just feasting on doctors while doctors have no way to fight back.. lawyers should have some accountability as well.

Wishful thinking, I know, especially as with how one defines "frivolous" and all the other cans of worms that would be opened by that. But it would probably go a long way towards solving that issue if we could.

Anyway, time to go get some popcorn

Here I brought another bowl. 😀