- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
Since the situ for doctors is deteriorating in this country, why dont the doctors go on a strike? for the love of medicine? Oh well, you love medicine, who love you?
Why dont physicians go on strike?
- Thread starter wsc2879
- Start date
Because that's a horrifically immoral decision that cannot be explained by any other reason that physicians are selfish bastards who would rather have their patients die in order for their working conditions or salary to improve? Is that good enough?
D
deleted307836
😴
Actually, from what I understand, it's illegal for physicians to collectively unionize/strike in the US. Something about anti-trade laws or monopolies or some other legal concept I really don't know much about.
If you want to "strike" as a physician, I think the best you could do legally would be to reject Medicare/medicaid patients, go into private practice where you can better dictate your own working conditions, etc.
Devil's advocate here, I found an interesting article that gives substantial evidence of death-rates significantly decreasing when doctors go on strike. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...lth_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reaction score
- 13
You apparently didn't read the entire article. The end of it contains a refutation of the major points of the article above:
- One example often cited is that of a monthlong strike by Los Angeles County physicians in 1976, during which the mortality rate for patients was seen to drop by 18 percent. But a 1979 study in the American Journal of Public Health showed that the overall area death rate remained unchanged, as enough personnel remained on duty to handle the real emergencies. Any seeming benefit to patients' health likely resulted from about 11,000 fewer operations (presumably elective) being performed that month than was typical, meaning that an estimated 50 to 150 patients who could have been expected to die didn't.
- A four-month Israeli doctors' strike in 1983 was found to have some definable effects on public health - the percentage of cesarean sections increased somewhat, and one study suggested hypertension patients might have received worse treatment - but no observed impact on mortality. Nonetheless, the popular wisdom saw the work stoppage as a disaster: a detailed study of public perceptions afterward found that nearly one in four urgent-care patients (or their relatives) felt the strike had resulted in major health problems.
- A 1984 doctors' strike in Varkaus, Finland, mainly meant fewer visits for colds and stomachaches; no significant harmful effects to the public were seen, researchers found, and the uptick in visits after the doctors returned to work suggested that patients were glad to have them back.
- Another key example used to support the proposition that fewer doctors means fewer deaths comes from a June 2000 article in the British Medical Journal written during another Israeli strike; the author reported that in the three months after doctors walked out death rates fell significantly in affected cities. However, her data was by no means the result of a scientific study but consisted mostly of anecdotal reports from funeral home directors, who claimed they'd seen "the same thing in 1983." What is known is that, as in the LA strike, many thousands of elective surgeries were postponed but emergency rooms and chronic care departments remained open.
- In 2003 a SARS outbreak closed four hospitals in Toronto, and all non-emergency services were suspended. Among other things, this led to the canceling of a quarter to a half of joint-replacement surgeries, 40 percent of cardiac surgeries, and as much as 93 percent of some outpatient procedures. The result? The greater Toronto area did see a slight dip in mortality rate relative to the prior two years, but so did the rest of Ontario, and the decrease wasn't statistically significant anyway.
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 42
It's illegal for physicians to do that. It breaks anti-trust laws.
Um, why don't you cite an actual study instead of a random website? None of the reports on the website regarding the falling death rates when doctors strike seem to be scientific...
Edit: Looks like apumic beat me to it.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reaction score
- 13
That's my understanding as well. It'd also be quite unethical and it's highly unlikely you could get enough physicians to agree to something like that for it to work anyway (even if it were legal).
From what I could tell, the site is for a course in medical ethics or similar. The articles cited, however, are generally not scientific nor particularly credible (which is a part of the site author's argument against them).
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 42
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 42
Yea, I noticed. I tend to discard any non-scientific study though, especially when someone is trying to use it to support their statements. I prefer to read something from a peer-reviewed journal and critically analyze it for myself rather than depend on someone else's (potentially wrong) interpretation of the study. 🙂
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,294
- Reaction score
- 5,497
The government is willing to shoot you for not working if you're not working because other people aren't working. End of story.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
OK. I often heard all these complaints not only from this forum, but also from physicians in real life. I am wondering what is the actual action the physicians, the organizations or maybe just you specifically have done or going to do to change the current situation?
If the physicians are all talks, nothing substantial will happen.
we have enough complaints, we need actions
If the physicians are all talks, nothing substantial will happen.
we have enough complaints, we need actions
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,815
- Reaction score
- 130
If you want my opinion: because US physicians are largely spineless.
It's not that uncommon in other countries. You can have most strike and leave the ERs ect staffed.
I'm not sure this matters. Are they going to throw every doc in the US in the can? Since at the end of the day docs hold most of the cards (control patient care), they have more power than they act like.
Edit: one of the biggest differences I notice between Americans and Europeans, is that the Europeans are always impressed by how fast we conduct our testing and get them taken care of. They usually are in utter shock at how fast blood is drawn, ekg's are performed, x-rays shot, and doctors at the bedside talking to them.
First off this typed in my iPhone, so excuse grammar/spelling.
I agree with the fact that it would be immoral, but let's play devils advocate for a moment.
One of the biggest problems that I see (I work in the only and busiest trauma center on the island) is that patients are slowly losing their appreciation for those that work in the health care field. Patients are constantly complaining about wait time, length of stay, getting their blood drawn/an IV, etc. I think patients feel that medicine is as easy as coming in and getting a shot. Also one thing that really irks me is the sense of entitlement that Americans have when they walk through that door (especially the drunks and homeless who come In demanding food/new clothes). I think the blatant disrespect and lack of appreciation is what causes so many people to become 'jaded' when they work in the medical field for awhile. Will a strike fix these issues? No, not entirely, however it would make patients realize that the people that are working are doing it to just help others out (for the most part). Money isn't an issue, and the MDs who want a lavish lifestyle find a way to make it happen.
If you want to strike, strike for a reason other than money, because money never ever fixes problems. Strike to bring back the appreciation and respect that is deserved of the individuals who invest so much time to save the lives of compete strangers.
I think one of the benefits of people who have clinical experience in areas that they are interested in is that we have accepted our fate and know that one day we will be sued, one day we will but spit on, and some days we will be treated like absolute crap by some patients, and we are okay with that. I want to do ER, and I know exactly what in getting myself into. I see it every day and after all the **** I've seen and experienced, I still love the fact that one day I will be the one who is calling the shots that saves a patients life, regardless of who they are. For me, no amount of money can bring the feeling that you feel when you have saved someones life.
Plus a strike wouldn't make the lawyers happy who pray on doctors to make a mistake 🙂.
First off this typed in my iPhone, so excuse grammar/spelling.
I agree with the fact that it would be immoral, but let's play devils advocate for a moment.
One of the biggest problems that I see (I work in the only and busiest trauma center on the island) is that patients are slowly losing their appreciation for those that work in the health care field. Patients are constantly complaining about wait time, length of stay, getting their blood drawn/an IV, etc. I think patients feel that medicine is as easy as coming in and getting a shot. Also one thing that really irks me is the sense of entitlement that Americans have when they walk through that door (especially the drunks and homeless who come In demanding food/new clothes). I think the blatant disrespect and lack of appreciation is what causes so many people to become 'jaded' when they work in the medical field for awhile. Will a strike fix these issues? No, not entirely, however it would make patients realize that the people that are working are doing it to just help others out (for the most part). Money isn't an issue, and the MDs who want a lavish lifestyle find a way to make it happen.
If you want to strike, strike for a reason other than money, because money never ever fixes problems. Strike to bring back the appreciation and respect that is deserved of the individuals who invest so much time to save the lives of compete strangers.
I think one of the benefits of people who have clinical experience in areas that they are interested in is that we have accepted our fate and know that one day we will be sued, one day we will but spit on, and some days we will be treated like absolute crap by some patients, and we are okay with that. I want to do ER, and I know exactly what in getting myself into. I see it every day and after all the **** I've seen and experienced, I still love the fact that one day I will be the one who is calling the shots that saves a patients life, regardless of who they are. For me, no amount of money can bring the feeling that you feel when you have saved someones life.
Plus a strike wouldn't make the lawyers happy who pray on doctors to make a mistake 🙂.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,805
- Reaction score
- 5
I don't have time to respond to your first comments this morning, maybe I will later, but I disagree with them.
For your third point, people tend not to get put in jail for illegal strikes, they are harshly fined, and that is usually a big enough threat to prevent people from striking.
Personally though, I believe it would be unethical to go on strike, let alone foolish and ignorant.
I totally agree with you. I couldn't imagine going on a strike because I wasn't paid enough. I think if anything, a boycott of some effect would take place if some crazy laws or regulations went into effect.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,008
- Reaction score
- 678
Striking would be an ethics violation. Getting paid is a gift and the only means we have to take care of ourselves as no one else is doing it. Striking would be wrong as long as needs are met. If your worried about money your motivation is for business not medicine. Putting broken lives back together is enough. The salary is just there so Docs and family can eat.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 4,947
- Reaction score
- 1,116
You all seem to have no experience regarding this issue. People don't go on strike simply because they want more money, they go on strike because the company is exploiting them. Who is the doctor going to strike against? The hospital? The government? Further more, doctors would have to unionize which would actually cause financial changes which most doctors being unwilling to do (probably see an average pay of say $200k with no salary above that). It doesn't matter what the job is people are going to complain. But you have to understand the difference between what is worthy ofa strike and what is worthy of bitching. When I was union, not even the union members wanted to strike. It's a bad deal for everyone.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 12
Believe it or not there are some doctors out there who are not in the profession for the money.
Not saying all doctors are saints, but there is a percentage that really do care about their profession and their patients. This percentage of doctors would never go on strike, and you can't have an effective strike when 1/3 or whatever of the physicains refuse to partake in it.
Not saying all doctors are saints, but there is a percentage that really do care about their profession and their patients. This percentage of doctors would never go on strike, and you can't have an effective strike when 1/3 or whatever of the physicains refuse to partake in it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,815
- Reaction score
- 130
- If you listen to the complaints, it's never been about simply wanting more money. It's the consistent cuts to reimbursement translating to lowered/stagnant income in the face of greater productivity.
-It would be directed at the goverment since they control most reimbursements either directly or indirectly.
-I don't think you're qualified to say what the pay would be if physicians unionized. there are countries where doctor groups negotiate some pretty nice deals for themselves. One example: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/06/articles/ie0806019i.htm
- That said, I'm not a fan of unions or striking in general. What I'd like to see is more along the lines of a walk-out protest rather than a prolonged strike.
If you had 25% of physicians decided to not show up to work tomorrow it would cause a big commotion.
you all seem to have this idea thats its immoral to strike. but wut wuld happen is minimium staff would still be on for emergencies. electives cancelled. critical pts monitered. all else either slow down or not done
Look-I don't like to get into arguments on the internet, but come on. YES there are patients who are jerks, disrespectful, etc. There are BIG issues with lawsuits / malpractice.
But you are honestly saying physicians (you mentioned health care workers but I am going to focus on physicians) don't get enough respect? There are many things that irk physicians but respect??! The next time you are in the hospital, ask the janitor if people respect them. Or the OR nurse that gets screamed at if he/she passes the incorrect tool to the surgeon.
From my experience in hospitals (large level 1 trauma center in the south-east), physicians get plenty of respect; if anything, the lack of respect towards physicians is a hierarchical issue, with attendings treating their interns / residents like crap.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 2
Someone has been watching Glenn Beck. They're going to come take your guns, put you in camps, and steal your Bibles, too.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Historically, physicians in America have always strived to make sure they are paid as much as possible. Before insurance "No Third Party" used to be rallying call for physicians because a third party would have meant that an external agency would control physician reimbursements (which it does now); medical schools, licensing boards etc were ALL created to make profits for physicians by limiting the numbers of those that were accredited. In terms of ethics, the AMA used to insist that it was unethical for physicians to work for HMO precursors because they would take patients in for lower fees than other physicians and create a competitive market, which would inevitably drive physician fees down. Additionally, the reason physicians have such high salaries now is because there was a brief period where insurance (government or otherwise) trusted physicians to control their own reimbursement. They dictated their rates, and the sudden jump in salaries was because physicians decided to give themselves huge salaries since they now had the ridiculously deep pockets of the government and insurance companies to draw from.
The idea that physicians have not been in their profession for the money isn't just idealistic - it's a lie. Yes you get to save lives and do all kinds of cool stuff with science, but don't be fooled into thinking that American medicine has some kind of historical or inherent duty to be a completely self-sacrificing institution. Reimbursement to feed your family and live a comfortable life is not just a nice bonus for saving lives - it is a right. And it's always been that way.
Should physicians strike against the government? It sounds incredibly satisfying to do so, but no. If for nothing else than because they are ethically bound to help their patients.
Physicians could, however, withdraw from the AMA. The AMA has historically been the association that has looked out to physician rights. It isn't doing that anymore. The AMA does not represent the views the physicians that it is supposed to represent. For example, most physicians were against Obamacare, but the AMA got back behind it. If anything, physicians should pressure the AMA into having leadership and direction that is in line with their needs. One way to do this would be to have a significant number of physicians boycott the AMA altogether (I don't know if you can do that as a physician though and still keep practicing).
The idea that physicians have not been in their profession for the money isn't just idealistic - it's a lie. Yes you get to save lives and do all kinds of cool stuff with science, but don't be fooled into thinking that American medicine has some kind of historical or inherent duty to be a completely self-sacrificing institution. Reimbursement to feed your family and live a comfortable life is not just a nice bonus for saving lives - it is a right. And it's always been that way.
Should physicians strike against the government? It sounds incredibly satisfying to do so, but no. If for nothing else than because they are ethically bound to help their patients.
Physicians could, however, withdraw from the AMA. The AMA has historically been the association that has looked out to physician rights. It isn't doing that anymore. The AMA does not represent the views the physicians that it is supposed to represent. For example, most physicians were against Obamacare, but the AMA got back behind it. If anything, physicians should pressure the AMA into having leadership and direction that is in line with their needs. One way to do this would be to have a significant number of physicians boycott the AMA altogether (I don't know if you can do that as a physician though and still keep practicing).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 1
Unless under a unified employer, physicians are treated as individual businesses and Federal anti-trusts clauses prevent those businesses that would otherwise be in competition with one another from collaborating on issues such as reimbursement. Or at least, that is my understanding of it.
My opinion is that physicians should independently strike and shut down everything but ER services meant to immediately stabilize the patient. Patients, and particularly insurance companies, abuse the generosity shown by physicians. THAT is unethical.
My opinion is that physicians should independently strike and shut down everything but ER services meant to immediately stabilize the patient. Patients, and particularly insurance companies, abuse the generosity shown by physicians. THAT is unethical.
I'm not even going to dip my toes into the debate about the benefits physicians should strike for, but I think it's manifestly obvious they should be allowed to strike. Leave a skeleton crew for emergencies (pun not intended.)
Why should nurses be allowed to strike, but not doctors? Nurses are constantly saying that they are ESSENTIAL to patient care and that hospitals would FALL APART without them. If we acknowledge that that is true, shouldn't they be prevented from striking as well? If they are allowed to strike, isn't that tacit evidence that life can go on during a strike of a large portion of the healthcare field?
Why should nurses be allowed to strike, but not doctors? Nurses are constantly saying that they are ESSENTIAL to patient care and that hospitals would FALL APART without them. If we acknowledge that that is true, shouldn't they be prevented from striking as well? If they are allowed to strike, isn't that tacit evidence that life can go on during a strike of a large portion of the healthcare field?
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,815
- Reaction score
- 130
Physicians can and do avoid joining the AMA. The AMA at this point represents a minority of the practicing physicians (but they let on, and have many convinced they speak for the majority).
Med students can participate in this as well. The AMA works hard at getting incoming med students to mindlessly join up in order to bolster their number of members. Entering med students, think hard about the AMA's actions before you sign up.
somewhat related: Having an association where the majority of physician are members and that pushes an agenda in line with it's members would really help physicians out. It's obvious the AMA isn't going to be that organization, but if another one rose up to fill the power void it could do nothing but good. Not having any unified body (the subspecialty groups are too small to really help), has IMO greatly contributed to physicians getting taken advantage of.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,294
- Reaction score
- 5,497
Instead of assuming I follow one stupid biased media organization or another, try proving me wrong, *******. Governments have nothing but a monopoly on violence.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 0
it's me, i'm john galt
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,793
- Reaction score
- 11
I would go on strike if things got so bad that I couldn't make ends meet. I'm not going to be some martyr and allow people to take advantage of me. If it was illegal for me to go on strike, I would just temporarily choose to "quit" and "not be a physician". It sucks that people would not get the help, but you can't allow other people to take advantage of you and use that (people dying/becoming sick) against you as leverage.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 809
- Reaction score
- 3
Because you won't get enough physicians to agree which will undermine the strikers, who could potentially all get canned like what Reagan did.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 809
- Reaction score
- 3
On top of that, doctors would lose the PR campaign - the single biggest factor. Patients have sympathy for nurses but not as much for doctors. They never spend much time with doctors but a lot with nurses so doctors are seen as these distant people making bank and driving Mercedes while nurses are easier to relate to. And even if you did have a large pr campaign - it's like a strike by wall street guys - people are just gonna roll their eyes at people in the top 2% of income earners whining (and it'll sound line whining).
I'm not taking a position whether doctors should strike, just that if they did, it would be disastrous for the profession and would be a massive boom for mid levels as well as being ineffective on it's own.
I'm not taking a position whether doctors should strike, just that if they did, it would be disastrous for the profession and would be a massive boom for mid levels as well as being ineffective on it's own.
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,516
Basically because things aren't bad enough yet. There's still a large cash market, a lot of private insurance (and will continue to be, even with ObamaCare, unless they pass a new law), physicians have high salaries and recession proof jobs. People don't strike because they're worried things might get bad, they'll only strike when they think things are already really bad. Heck, at this point physicians don't even want to join the same union, generally different specialities still see their greatest immediate threat as the other specialties.
It could happen. In fact it has happened in (to name a few) Mexico, Israel, Germany, and India. Strikes can also take many forms from 'we'll be here but we're not documenting for reimbursements (strikes against individual hospitals), 'we're only taking care of real emergencies (strikes in Israel, Mexico), and even 'f- you, take care of your own f-ing heart attack (the strikes in Germany). If the US ever goes to a single payer system and then tries to cut costs by cutting physician pay then I suspect we'll rapidly unionize and strke regardless of the law. However we're at least a few decades out from that.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,579
- Reaction score
- 1,177
Perhaps it's because even despite how "awful" things are (and I use "awful" as relatively and facetiously as I can here), most physicians still make well over $100k which puts them well into the top 5% of all wage earners in the United States. Maybe they are able to look around and realize..."hmm, you know, I don't have it nearly as bad as most people in this country".
The lesson here is that "The DEATH of Medicine As We Know It" has been circulating in various reports and articles for decades now. Health Care Reform in 2010 is just the next thing that in 15 years we'll look back on and say, "it didn't really change as much as we thought". It'll join hysteria's like HMO's in the 90's, Medicaid and Medicare in the 60's and the development of specialization, residencies, and The Match in the 50's as things that while significant, didn't result in the end of medicine, just the realization of a new normalcy.
The lesson here is that "The DEATH of Medicine As We Know It" has been circulating in various reports and articles for decades now. Health Care Reform in 2010 is just the next thing that in 15 years we'll look back on and say, "it didn't really change as much as we thought". It'll join hysteria's like HMO's in the 90's, Medicaid and Medicare in the 60's and the development of specialization, residencies, and The Match in the 50's as things that while significant, didn't result in the end of medicine, just the realization of a new normalcy.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,799
- Reaction score
- 2,808
I really hope that happens if that becomes the case...
Which begs the question - assuming they succeed in raising pay and benefits the way nurses have, wouldn't that produce a better outcome than what physicians have now?
It seems as though docs who draw salaries rather than being reimbursed ENJOY drawing salaries.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,078
- Reaction score
- 10
yes, agreed. that doesn't mean however that the "new normalcy" doesn't exacerbate the brain drain out of medicine, as aspiring doctors look at the calculus of spending the best years of their personal and reproductive lives making a fraction of what their intellectual peers are making in other areas. it used to be that medicine was easily the safest educational investment to make - but that's a status that has become inexorably less certain over the last 20 years.
it's no wonder young attendings are hedging their bets by demanding schedules more accommodating to their lives outside medicine. the rewards of full commitment are perceived as much less than they used to be.
by and large they do - but when you hear a physician say that, recall that for the most part those drawing salaries are a self-selecting group. salaried physicians have made a choice to get out of a private practice environment. that choice often costs them anywhere from 20-70% of what they would be making otherwise, as well as a good deal of their autonomy. so yes, i would imagine it would have to be a choice you were happy with for other reasons 😀
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,815
- Reaction score
- 130
You wouldn't need many physicians for a strike to be disruptive.
The air-traffic controller strike isn't the same for several reasons. Notably 1. the strikers were violating a law saying federal employees can't strike. 2. similarly, they were federal employees 3. they had a contract they were breaching by striking. 4. Doctors are much harder to replace, and thus couldn't be fired even if the gov could do it. The situation is not similar are all.
If we actually had good PR to begin with I'd agree. however, at this point I think it's clear that we won't fix our problems by winning the public's hearts and having them go to bat for us. Either dealing directly with the gov or getting the public to address it out of selfish reasons (stop taking medicare to get AARP to help deal with ****ty medicare reimbursement rates ect) is all we've got.
I agree with the spirit of this. I'm not particularly concerned about he healthcare reform bill. It's the overarching theme of physicians doing a poor job of watching out for their own interests that I'm worried about (failing to significantly influence the health-care bill, a poor response to midlevel encroachment, failure get any reimbursement rate stability).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 809
- Reaction score
- 3
Again, the PR battle would be lost before it began. The only outcome would be damage to the profession.
Now, if enough physicians refused to take medicare, that might actually work in terms of increasing reimbursement. But I doubt that would happen either.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,815
- Reaction score
- 130
I'm not sure there's a PR battle to be won as it is. I doubt to many people are going to "stick it to doctors" by letting a nurse fill in for a physician. And we're never going to be a group that ever sees an outpouring of public love and sympathy no matter what we do.
but I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,793
- Reaction score
- 11
LOL @ The idea that people will boycott doctors because of the negative view that people will have of them. People can hate all they want, but you know they'll still make an appointment. 
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 208
- Reaction score
- 0
I think people are thinking too narrowly on the issues at hand. Salaries / take home aren't everything. What about working conditions and outrageous malpractice insurance premiums? Without getting to deep into Obama's measures, there was a plan to cap malpractice insurance that was dropped almost immediately. 80 hour work week maximums... hardly enforced. Purely economic strikes are illegal in some industries and certainly for doctors. Most (in my experience) doctors working at hospitals are not actual employees but rather independent contractors who use the hospitals' facilities. That is where the anti-trust issue comes into play.
I'm sick of the PR, people bitch and whine without understanding all sides of the story. It isn't about doctors struggling to make ends meet, but rather about fairness. I want to see how happy the general public would be if they saw an extra 10-25%+ of their salary go to paying for insurance because people love to sue.
I'm sick of the PR, people bitch and whine without understanding all sides of the story. It isn't about doctors struggling to make ends meet, but rather about fairness. I want to see how happy the general public would be if they saw an extra 10-25%+ of their salary go to paying for insurance because people love to sue.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,078
- Reaction score
- 10
meh, the last thing i read about the malpractice issue was that it had a relatively small effect on the cost of care. Physicians complain about it, but relatively few are being driven out of practice because of it, and of course reimbursements don't take it into consideration at all. The primary impact of malpractice insurance is that it creates physician shortages in certain specific areas of the country with plaintiff-friendly courts.
the moral of the story is that the doctors vote with their feet and don't practice in sue-happy areas. but these stories you hear about doctors quitting because of insurance are just anecdotes.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 455
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,579
- Reaction score
- 1,177
???
Granted as a 2nd year resident, I've been well past paying attention to applicant/matriculant stats for a significant portion of time, but I was under the impression from SDN that applicants today had higher GPA's and MCAT scores than any time in recent history and that the competition to get in was more brutal than ever. Is that not the case? Whether that will continue into the future as pre-meds have to reexamine that calculus depending on things like the economy and HCR, no one knows, but I highly doubt that medical schools are in any danger of having to accept less than qualified applicants any time soon.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,078
- Reaction score
- 10
i'm looking at this over the long term, which the perspective you invoked when suggesting that Chicken Little has been shouting for a while now... the security and respect that used to come with medicine compared to any other line of work formerly guaranteed that a very substantial portion of the very brightest people would end up doing it. The advent of business, finance and (well, until recently anyway) law, in addition to changes in the tax laws, began to siphon that supply of the very best out of the profession, because medicine became a less obvious solution. For these people, the merits of being the top 5% are clear, but become less obvious when the alternatives are a shot at the top 0.1% I don't need to tell you that these people are also disproportionately the ones who lead, who discover, etc., so they really drive the profession. that's the brain drain, and it's bad for society because we need these folks working on health problems and not on Wall St derivatives.
a more concrete example would be the percentage of top graduates from top schools going into consulting/finance jobs, as opposed to medicine. Medicine is losing, has been for a while, and the recession/financial crisis hasn't put much of a dent in that.
now do you see why things like MCAT and GPA aren't the appropriate ways to look at this question? the ones representing the brain drain aren't going to have a huge impact on them, because they represent a minority of medical students in any case. what does an increase in the accepted average MCAT from 30 to 31 over the past fifteen years say about what these people are doing? not a lot.
the effect of GPA inflation is not insignificant in the rising numbers seen, either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 12
I see your point, but MDs are still the most successful of the science related fields. Most kids don't start taking biology classes in High School because they have their entire life career planned out, they take the biology classes because they like science.
Sure there are other jobs that pay more and take less schooling, but not in the sciences. The whole "MDs are underpaid for how much schooling they did" arguement just becomes laughably silly once you look at how much PhDs make and how much harder it is for them to find work in today's world.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 1,516
Does it hurt to be that stupid?
