Healthcare in the US, new plans under Obama.

[TheBuzzSaw]

You've socialized many things before. Let's take a look at your education system - is this something you consider a right? A right to education? How come - is it because it levels the playing field and gives an equal opportunity at success for everyone?

Yet doesn't health care fall under the same umbrella? A healthy work force is a strong work force. Your health, along with your education, will certainly decide if you're successful or not.

I just want to point out that the public school system has an extremely low success rate overall. In lots of neighborhoods, something like 25% of students even graduate from high school. Then, along comes an inspired leader who opens up a private school (some for just girls, some for just boys, some for just blacks, some open to anyone), establishes some different rules, and the graduation rate jumps up to 99%. Then, along comes government leaders and protesters saying "that's not fair" and demand the school be shut down.

Really?

So, frankly, I don't trust the government with much. Education is certainly easier to provide than health care, so I'm glad the government is at least trying, but the quality of many government products is rather low, yet no one is allowed to do anything about it.

 

[CRASHiC]

people who need the care the most

And you support this claim how?
No patient takes precident over another.
An emergency room patient, is an emergency room patient.
Age, sex, class, all of these do not matter. A patient is a patient.
Do you have any numbers that show a lower number of patients in the uk or canada? How about higher fatality rate among patients? If not, then this argument is pointless. There is no higher patient.

I just want to point out that the public school system has an extremely low success rate overall. In lots of neighborhoods, something like 25% of students even graduate from high school. Then, along comes an inspired leader who opens up a private school (some for just girls, some for just boys, some for just blacks, some open to anyone), establishes some different rules, and the graduation rate jumps up to 99%. Then, along comes government leaders and protesters saying "that's not fair" and demand the school be shut down.

And you blame the graduation rate on the school system and government? One thing republicans never seem to understand is that sometimes, fault falls nowhere. The reason most kids drop our of high school is because they have to. As opposed to the kids who attend a private school, who are from richer families, kids who attend public school generally speaking, come from lower to lower-middle class families. What is important for that family is first and foremost to put food on the table. It may come that the child has to drop our and begin work to support his or her family.

So, frankly, I don't trust the government with much. Education is certainly easier to provide than health care, so I'm glad the government is at least trying, but the quality of many government products is rather low, yet no one is allowed to do anything about it.

I'd much rather trust my life in the hands of those who can not make a profit, as opposed to those in a profit business.
And easier? How so? Both require a diverse staff of college professionals with high pay salary, both require large amounts of supplies, both require large institutions, and both are in constant demand. The only difference is it is harder to add up the success of a school system, as hard as we try with testing, which only measures a person's ability to take a test.
Also, what quality are you talking about?
I live in Virgina, where taxes are high, and the quality of life is just as high. The roads payed for by these taxes are built quickly, and the police force handles the difficulty of living next to DC nicely. The government, when given proper funding, handles anything that is not profit based better than the free market.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

And you support this claim how?
No patient takes precident over another.
An emergency room patient, is an emergency room patient.
Age, sex, class, all of these do not matter. A patient is a patient.
Do you have any numbers that show a lower number of patients in the uk or canada? How about higher fatality rate among patients? If not, then this argument is pointless. There is no higher patient.

Someone who has a more serious medical condition is someone who needs care the most. It has nothing to do with social status.

And you blame the graduation rate on the school system and government? One thing republicans never seem to understand is that sometimes, fault falls nowhere. The reason most kids drop our of high school is because they have to. As opposed to the kids who attend a private school, who are from richer families, kids who attend public school generally speaking, come from lower to lower-middle class families. What is important for that family is first and foremost to put food on the table. It may come that the child has to drop our and begin work to support his or her family.

... are you serious? These private schools pull from the same population of people. They don't go out and pluck out smart kids just to prove a point. The only thing that did change was the government regulation and whatnot. And no, I'm not referring to expensive private schools; I'm referring to the private schools that are subsidized.

HA! And while we're taking political jabs, it is typical that a democrat tries to point out that "fault falls nowhere". Zero accountability. If it works, the dems were behind it. If it fails, it's no one's fault. You're living a fantasy. The government is incompetent in these areas. These private schools proved that under different organization, kids can be successful. Whether it's a change of scenery, change of peers, change of whatever, they were more successful.

I'd much rather trust my life in the hands of those who can not make a profit, as opposed to those in a profit business.
And easier? How so? Both require a diverse staff of college professionals with high pay salary, both require large amounts of supplies, both require large institutions, and both are in constant demand. The only difference is it is harder to add up the success of a school system, as hard as we try with testing, which only measures a person's ability to take a test.
Also, what quality are you talking about?
I live in Virgina, where taxes are high, and the quality of life is just as high. The roads payed for by these taxes are built quickly, and the police force handles the difficulty of living next to DC nicely. The government, when given proper funding, handles anything that is not profit based better than the free market.

Teachers are paid the same as doctors?

And dang, I could do anything too with enough money thrown my way. Isn't the whole point here to reduce government spending?

 

[CRASHiC]

Someone who has a more serious medical condition is someone who needs care the most. It has nothing to do with social status.

Provide me some statistical data that shows in the UK or the Canada that lower risk patients are being treat less. Don't give me sad sappy stories, I want statistical data showing that fewer patients with serious treatments are not getting treated.

... are you serious? These private schools pull from the same population of people. They don't go out and pluck out smart kids just to prove a point. The only thing that did change was the government regulation and whatnot. And no, I'm not referring to expensive private schools; I'm referring to the private schools that are subsidized.

Private schools pull from only those who are able to pay for their education, the upper middle class. It doesn't have to be expensive, the poorest of the poor can still not afford even the cheapest of private schools, and are the most likely to drop out due to hard economic situations.

eachers are paid the same as doctors?

And dang, I could do anything too with enough money thrown my way. Isn't the whole point here to reduce government spending?

in most countries where a medical procedure won't cost you half of your years salary, yes, a doctor is paid the same as a teacher. However, remember, schools must also by administrative staff, security, grounds keeping, custodians, cooks, and guidance counselors.

Also, you do not have the same amount of resources the government has, and unlike the government, you can stand to make a profit, when it is the governments goal to break even. This is the major advantage that government holds. When something shouldn't be for profit, it should be government run.

However, as said before, the majority of what is being said here has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, obama's health care plan, which is simply a government insurance plan.

 

[aeghrur]

Also, how big are said private schools? Do they have 3000 kids each? 30+ kids per teacher? how much funding is received compared to the public schools? what is the quality of the teachers compared to public schools? do they teach the same curriculum or different ones? how many classes do they offer? etc etc. graduation rate is affected by many things, and even then it's not the only thing that matters.

 

[RDK]

I can't speak for everyone here who may have gone to private school also, but I can say for sure that my private school education was abysmal. I was taught from Kindergarten to my senior year in high school that the earth was created in 7 days and a giant flood killed all living things around 4,000 years ago.

If anything, private school is an abomination.

 

[Deleted member]

Buzz, if you don't trust your government for much, maybe you're living in the wrong country. Not to mention the scenario you outlined is pretty ****ing loaded - private schools DO make sure you have a certain intelligence before accepting you. Not all, but a lot of them. You are tested in personality, IQ, and aptitude tests (or a combo of either). Take my university as an example - it forces a 66% average in all of its first year courses. Schools do force things, and graduation rate is definitely one of them.

 

[GoldShadow]

And you support this claim how?
No patient takes precident over another.
An emergency room patient, is an emergency room patient.
Age, sex, class, all of these do not matter. A patient is a patient.
Do you have any numbers that show a lower number of patients in the uk or canada? How about higher fatality rate among patients? If not, then this argument is pointless. There is no higher patient.

Please don't trivialize my entire post (which took me a while to make) and try to discredit everything based on one small comment. But here are your numbers, some of which were in my original post.

Unacceptably long wait times for patients with mental health problems in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8048685.stm

About 25% of patients in need of knee or hip surgery wait 1-2 years in UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537385/Patients-wait-year-for-hip-surgery.html

I'm not going to just bash the NHS as a failure though. It does have its strong points, and has with relative success, implemented an "18-week" limit on how long patients have to wait for treatment. Whether it is a continued success, we'll have to wait and see. Still, wait times for some diagnoses and treatments are very long:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...atment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html

In Canada:
Wait times are longer in Canada, though it differs by province. It is shortest in Ontario (~15 weeks) and longest in Saskatchewan (~27 weeks), though wait times for orthopedic surgeries averaged 38 weeks.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

Waiting times for knee replacement surgery are over 2.5 times longer in Canada than in the US:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/16/1068

ER wait times are also much longer in Canada than in the US. In the US, average ER wait time was 3.7 hours (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44453.php), versus 9.6 hours in Canada (http://edrs.waittimes.net/en/provincialsummary.aspx), and it is generally agreed upon that long wait times increase the chances of complications or even death:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3322309&page=1

According to that last article, "In a poll of emergency physicians in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut conducted by ACEP this past February, just under 65 percent of physicians said they had personal experience with a patient being harmed by boarding -- and 23 percent said they had personal experience with a patient dying because of it. "

Boarding is "when a patient who has been treated in the ER is kept there afterward because of a lack of available inpatient beds elsewhere in the hospital" and is directly related to patient volume/wait time.

And here's an article on how Ontario's attempt at shortening wait times has been hurting patients and hospitals:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/03/9330606-sun.html

 

[CRASHiC]

And why are there longer wait times in room for the ER? Because more people are treated, because more people can afford to go to a hospital. You might ask yourself why some people would not go to the hospital if in an ER situation. As someone who went through a time when he barely got through Christmas, it is much more common than you think. Though I am having some difficulty finding the article, the New York Times (maybe a different national paper, thus might difficulty in finding an internet copy of the article) showed a large portion of people, living below the poverty line between the ages of 20-30, giving themselves stitches and attempting to heal large, life threatening wounds because of inability to afford medical care.

More people being treated, larger average wait time in the ER.

The goal is to save the most lives possible. Not to save everyone who can afford it.

 

[aeghrur]

To add onto CrashiC's point, another possible reason why Canada/UK has higher waiting times is because they have less trained professionals. After all, there are less people in those countries practicing medicine than in the US.
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html
Of course, it also shows that they have higher graduation rates per trained professionals, but I'm not sure if that balances out the difference in practicing professionals.

 

[RDK]

To add onto CrashiC's point, another possible reason why Canada/UK has higher waiting times is because they have less trained professionals. After all, there are less people in those countries practicing medicine than in the US.

And why do you think that might be? Just take a wild shot in the dark.

More people being treated, larger average wait time in the ER.

The goal is to save the most lives possible. Not to save everyone who can afford it.

The point is that just like anything else in the free market, if you have sufficient funds to purchase it then you should be able to purchase superior health care. Why should it be any different?

If you die under the free market philosophy then you can't say it was anybody else's fault but your own. Not to trivialize your mother's situation, but I can guarantee that if we implemented UHC, somewhere out there a son who watched his mother die because of government-rationed health care would have the exact same gripes against UHC that you have for private health insurance.

 

[CRASHiC]

And why do you think that might be? Just take a wild shot in the dark.

For profit reasons, And if a doctor wishes to work for profit, what is to say this doctor will not exploit his patience?

The point is that just like anything else in the free market, if you have sufficient funds to purchase it then you should be able to purchase superior health care. Why should it be any different?

Because health care should not be a profit business. It does not run efficiently as a profit business, as it evades the very laws of economics. If something is not affected by supply and demand, then it deserves and requires the use of socialization.
Another reason is the moral of someone making a profit off of weather someone lives or dies directly.

However, again, this has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan, which is just a government run health care insurance program, and does not have such huge effects as what most of us are discussing here.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If the capitalist system of America was working, why are we ranked so low, compared to the vast number of doctors, facilities, equipment, and money supporting it?

Also, to assume that a person is poor because of their own fault is one of the most ignorant, and foolish things to believe. The chances of rising over the poverty line is exceedingly low, and punishing people because of their born class is something barbaric cultures such as India do, and is something that someone with such strong hate or religion and culture, I'd imagine you would feel above, but I suppose even atheist can be hypocrites.

 

[RDK]

For profit reasons, And if a doctor wishes to work for profit, what is to say this doctor will not exploit his patience?

And who is to say the government won't exploit patients? You're making a completely baseless assumption here.

My point was that if doctors are told which patients to treat, how to treat them, what they're allowed to use to treat them, and how much they're paid to do it then doctors have almost no incentive to do a quality job. I'm going into medical school, I think I would know. I for sure would not want the government telling me how to handle my patients.

Because health care should not be a profit business. It does not run efficiently as a profit business, as it evades the very laws of economics. If something is not affected by supply and demand, then it deserves and requires the use of socialization.

What does that even mean? How is health care not affected by supply and demand?

Another reason is the moral of someone making a profit off of weather someone lives or dies directly.

How is that morally unacceptable? So you're saying doctors, firemen, and policemen shouldn't make any profit from their jobs at all? A little ungrateful, don't you think?

And you're calling me morally apprehensible?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If the capitalist system of America was working, why are we ranked so low, compared to the vast number of doctors, facilities, equipment, and money supporting it?

That's some very up-to-date information you have there:

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

Bah, who cares! It's only ten years late. Which is even beside the point. People have posted countless links exposing the flaws in a universal health care system. Refer back to the waiting times for walk-in ER's. The ER I work at rarely makes anybody wait longer than an hour, not even counting extreme cases. We live in a country where privileged foreigners travel here to get surgeries and treatments because their own country has abysmal health care.

Also, to assume that a person is poor because of their own fault is one of the most ignorant, and foolish things to believe. The chances of rising over the poverty line is exceedingly low, and punishing people because of their born class is something barbaric cultures such as India do, and is something that someone with such strong hate or religion and culture, I'd imagine you would feel above, but I suppose even atheist can be hypocrites.

I should have clarified myself, as I didn't mean that people who are below the poverty level in the current pseudo-capitalist market are at fault for their position. When I said that I assumed you knew I was talking about the total laissez-faire free market economy.

You have to realize that the very little UHC will do to prevent situations like the one that happend to your mom is still going to create more situations like that for other people.

Edit: me being an atheist has nothing to do with my economic views. I just hold the belief that, like virtually everything else in this country, if you have sufficient funds to purchase your own health care you should be able to do so. Medicine isn't a public utility like a highway or the education system, it's a private market. None of you can explain why a basic form of health care should be provided by the government instead of, say, government-funded plumbing. What is so special or exceptional about medicine where the government is obligated to use tax dollars to provide it to every citizen?

 

[GoldShadow]

And why are there longer wait times in room for the ER? Because more people are treated, because more people can afford to go to a hospital. You might ask yourself why some people would not go to the hospital if in an ER situation. As someone who went through a time when he barely got through Christmas, it is much more common than you think. Though I am having some difficulty finding the article, the New York Times (maybe a different national paper, thus might difficulty in finding an internet copy of the article) showed a large portion of people, living below the poverty line between the ages of 20-30, giving themselves stitches and attempting to heal large, life threatening wounds because of inability to afford medical care.

More people being treated, larger average wait time in the ER.

The goal is to save the most lives possible. Not to save everyone who can afford it.

Please stop ignoring the arguments and my sources and statistics and trying to counter them by throwing out unsupported non sequiturs.

It is common knowledge, and has already been mentioned several times, that ERs are required to take in any patient regardless of insurance status. It is well known that many uninsured and underinsured use ERs as their primary care facility, and even some people with insurance who don't want to wait. It is putting a giant strain on ERs across the United States; many have had to shut down because of it.

Canada had 13.4 million ER visits in 2004 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report3/app_e_table-eng.php#e3). There are about 6000 physicians who practice emergency medicine in Canada (http://www.caep.ca/template.asp?id=7BD52CAFD85E4EE1A964838EBA055571). This means there were about 2233 ER visits per emergency physician in Canada.

The US had 120 million ER visits in 2006 (http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...s-mostly-by-medicare-medicaid-recipients.html). The US has 25446 emergency physicians according to the AMA (https://catalog.ama-assn.org/MEDIA/ProductCatalog/m270018_PCD_04_table_1.9.pdf). This means there were about 4716 ER visits per emergency physician in the United States.

The US has more than double the ER load of Canada, yet the wait is about 3 times shorter in the US. And as per my previous post, more "lives are saved" in the American ERs, and it's not based on who can afford it, to boot.

I'd guess it's because in Canada, people do not use ERs as primary care. In the US, 42% of ER visits were Medicaid/Medicare patients and 18% uninsured patients. In Canada, people have to go to their GP for most problems so the ERs do not have as high a volume. Then why are wait times so high in Canada? Probably because the way their single payer system is set up, they don't have as many funds left over for expenditures on equipment and ancillary personnel (there are fewer MRI machines in Canadian hospitals than in the US, among other things... but I'm just guessing on the ancillary staff part).

Also, your glib use of the phrase "save lives" leads me to believe you've never spent time working or volunteering in an ER. 95% of what goes on in ERs is mundane, routine, or non-urgent. Very little "saving lives" goes on. (note: 95% is not an exact statistic, it's just an expression I've used to convey an approximate idea of what goes on in ERs).



I've done my research, and the truth is, health care is a very complex issue. Hell, I know for sure that I don't know even the half of it. I'm trying to understand it by doing my homework before posting, and I think everybody should do the same.

 

[GoldShadow]

Another reason is the moral of someone making a profit off of weather someone lives or dies directly.

What exactly do you mean by this? Just asking for some clarification.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If the capitalist system of America was working, why are we ranked so low, compared to the vast number of doctors, facilities, equipment, and money supporting it?

Because these so called "ranks" are based on poor, nonstandard metrics of "health" such as life expectancy and infant mortality rate. Talk to any health professional and I almost guarantee you that they will bemoan the use of such statistics to rank health care. Life expectancy varies wildly across populations, and is less an indicator of our healthcare quality than of cultural attitudes. Of course a country with a 33% overweight and 34% obesity rate is going to have a lower life expectancy, no matter how good the medical care is. Such a country should focus on changing public attitudes toward eating, exercise, and lifestyle. All the medical care in the world wouldn't help. And infant mortality varies wildly from country to country. Some countries count stillbirths, while others don't. Other countries don't attempt to save infants born more than 3 months premature and thus, don't count them in the infant mortality statistic. The US, for instance, does try to save premies and since very early birth premies have a low rate of survival, the US's infant mortality stat is artificially deflated.

On the other hand, the US's health care expenditure is through the roof and I agree that we absolutely need to cut it down and make it more efficient. There are a number of ways to do this and I'm not sure exactly how Obama's plan tackles it, so I'll read up on that.

Also, to assume that a person is poor because of their own fault is one of the most ignorant, and foolish things to believe. The chances of rising over the poverty line is exceedingly low, and punishing people because of their born class is something barbaric cultures such as India do, and is something that someone with such strong hate or religion and culture, I'd imagine you would feel above, but I suppose even atheist can be hypocrites.

Wow, way to insult a country of 1.2 billion people that you clearly know nothing about. The caste system was abolished in India some 40 years ago, and there are many affirmative action type programs to recruit people from formerly-ostracized-castes into jobs and universities. Naturally, it's going to be difficult to make it so that all people have opportunities like that, and of course there's still discrimination. But the US only made blacks equal to others (legally) about 40 years ago (til then it punished people because of their born race and kept them poor) and there's still residual discrimination against them that is diminishing. It will take time for attitudes in India to change completely, just like anywhere else. For the first time in my last visit to India did I see people who've been relegated to servant/menial jobs getting somewhere themselves, or sending their kids to school. It'll be a slow transformation but it'll happen.


Also, Crashic, please stop insulting people and avoiding a rational argument or I'll ask the mods to do something about it.

 

[CRASHiC]

And who is to say the government won't exploit patients? You're making a completely baseless assumption here.

Profit.

My point was that if doctors are told which patients to treat, how to treat them, what they're allowed to use to treat them, and how much they're paid to do it then doctors have almost no incentive to do a quality job.

This is no different than what we have now from health insurance companies. It is the company that gives the go ahead on the health care. The issue with a private company doing this is that they make the decision based off of profit margins.

I'm going into medical school, I think I would know. I for sure would not want the government telling me how to handle my patients.

Yet you would want an executive of a company, who has no stake or interest in saving people's lives?

We live in a country where privileged foreigners travel here to get surgeries and treatments because their own country has abysmal health care.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051709dnbusfrance.40cc221.html

as opposed to the privileged Americans who leave the States for health care? Also, France is the health care system that is the closest Obama's plan. Not that you guys care, because you are too busy bringing up points completely irrelevant to new health care plan, comparing to countries with far more government involvement than what Obama has planned.

What does that even mean? How is health care not affected by supply and demand?

I am sick, you have the medicine I need. Without medicine, I am likely to die. The price you set is irrelevant, because my demand will always be the same since there is alternative product, no inferior good. The demand is always equal to 1, meaning that I will buy the product if possible.
In all other products like this, the government is heavily involved in the pricing, and if it is not a socialized business, the government has appointed a business and heavily regulates its business.

Please stop ignoring the arguments and my sources and statistics and trying to counter them by throwing out unsupported non sequiturs.

Please stop bringing up countries that are irrelevant to Obama's plan, and have much more government control than what Obama plans.

What exactly do you mean by this? Just asking for some clarification.

I mean that in the the insurance company makes a decision weather or not to let the patient receive treatment, and makes profit off of their decision.
A government's goal is to break even.
A private company wants to make a profit. This is immoral, as well as highly unpractical in a nonelastic demand market.

Wow, way to insult a country of 1.2 billion people that you clearly know nothing about.

Barbaric was the wrong word, ancient is what I meant, meaning old, not here anymore, not in the present.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The basic disconnect we have going on here is that we seem to disagree where profits are concerned.

Personally, I have no problem with medical professionals making money off of health care. That is the reason that anyone goes to work: to make money. People want to make a profit so that they can continue doing what they love to do. We can all agree that companies should still be honest; they should focus on the needs of their customers. However, to become all indignant about someone bringing in surplus through health care is incredibly naive.

This is why we have competition. If one company consists of jerks and only seeks to exploit customers, its reputation drops, and a customer-friendly competitor can step in and win those customers. According to your logic, grocery stores should not be making any profits because how dare they profit off my needed daily nutrition!

 

[CRASHiC]

Personally, I have no problem with medical professionals making money off of health care. That is the reason that anyone goes to work: to make money.

Doctor's in the UK still earn a very healthy salary.
And what about Insurance companies, which is all the Obama plan attempts to change. What job do they have other than exploitation?
There is a difference than making money, and making profit. Let us say you are self employed, and have a few people working underneath you, and this is a non-profit organization. You have your self included on your pay roll, and earn a set salary. Your goal is to make enough money to pay your employs pay checks, including your own, as well as all of your expenses. You personally still make money, but the corporation does not make any extra money in itself, and being a non-profit, the money is then redistributed back into the corporation, used to buy new equipment, hire new employees, and whatever else the business might see fit, including charities. This system has shown to work very efficiently in business, as shown below.

In most cases, private business do not run as non-profit, and the majority of such business are government run.

This is why we have competition. If one company consists of jerks and only seeks to exploit customers, its reputation drops, and a customer-friendly competitor can step in and win those customers. According to your logic, grocery stores should not be making any profits because how dare they profit off my needed daily nutrition!

Competition does not happen the same in health care either. Generally, the only way most people in the United States can receive health care is to get in through their employer. They have no choice, no option, and thus the market is not running through competition. As for medicine, we permit long patents that allow one industry to completely take control of the market by the time the patent has worn off. Again, no competition is available.
As for the grocery, this does not apply. Groceries have a system of supply and demand, because there are inferior goods. Inferior goods are defined as replacements that are cheaper. If I want apples, but can not afford apples, I can and will select a food I want less but can actually afford to buy. As for morals, the grocery store is not directly involved in the process of life and death. While yes food is needed for survival, the connection a grocery store has with your well being is no where near the connection than that of a doctor or health insurer.

 

[Crimson King]

Doctor's in the UK still earn a very healthy salary.

Simple google search found this. What this shows is that that US doctors make A LOT more than UK doctors, and other doctors under a Nationalized Program. If I am a doctor, and lose the myth that doctors are rich now because med school will cost a fortune and put them into a lot of debt that grows and grows, then I will go to the place where I can make the most money. While our health care isn't the best in the world, generally, it is considerably better on a patient-to-patient basis.

In most cases, private business do not run as non-profit, and the majority of such business are government run.

Your point? The post office is non-profit, for the most part, and government-run, and it is VASTLY inefficient and several thousands of Post Offices closed recently because they couldn't afford to keep them open.

Competition does not happen the same in health care either. Generally, the only way most people in the United States can receive health care is to get in through their employer. They have no choice, no option, and thus the market is not running through competition. As for medicine, we permit long patents that allow one industry to completely take control of the market by the time the patent has worn off. Again, no competition is available.
As for the grocery, this does not apply. Groceries have a system of supply and demand, because there are inferior goods. Inferior goods are defined as replacements that are cheaper. If I want apples, but can not afford apples, I can and will select a food I want less but can actually afford to buy. As for morals, the grocery store is not directly involved in the process of life and death. While yes food is needed for survival, the connection a grocery store has with your well being is no where near the connection than that of a doctor or health insurer.

Actually, there's no competition with health care because of government intervention. There is a government run doctor's union that sole purpose is to cover up malpractice suits, pay for it, and protect the doctor. Without this, doctors would HAVE to work harder for better quality service, lower their own malpractice numbers, and be better workers. This happens in many private offices where you get some of your best service.

 

[CRASHiC]

Simple google search found this. What this shows is that that US doctors make A LOT more than UK doctors, and other doctors under a Nationalized Program. If I am a doctor, and lose the myth that doctors are rich now because med school will cost a fortune and put them into a lot of debt that grows and grows, then I will go to the place where I can make the most money. While our health care isn't the best in the world, generally, it is considerably better on a patient-to-patient basis.

I did not say, as good, as said health salary. If you do not view 80s as a healthy salary, than you have a skewed idea of healthy salary. 10,000 less a year is hardly a huge staggering difference.
Many lower class people are in just as much debt, and make much less. Doctor's do not need to be millionaires.
It also shows France, who has many private owned doctors, and doctors who operate in a free market esq workplace. Yet, their salary is far lower.
In fact, the patient to patient thing you have is completely wrong. The amount of money that it cost a person to stay one night in a hospital is enough to wreck a person financially. If anything, where we are weak is in the patient to patient relationship because of our over inflated cost. That is the largest problem I see in our health care system, and most of our problems branch out from there, because the cost makes the need for health insurance for those who would other wise not needed.

Your point? The post office is non-profit, for the most part, and government-run, and it is VASTLY inefficient and several thousands of Post Offices closed recently because they couldn't afford to keep them open.

But the post office is a business that has supply and demand and competition properties. It deserves to be on the free market. In fact, I believe it has perfect competition. They all provide the same service, and they keep the cost balanced because of many mail and shipping providers.

Actually, there's no competition with health care because of government intervention. There is a government run doctor's union that sole purpose is to cover up malpractice suits, pay for it, and protect the doctor. Without this, doctors would HAVE to work harder for better quality service, lower their own malpractice numbers, and be better workers. This happens in many private offices where you get some of your best service.

What do law suits have to do with inelastic demand? With health insurance companies picking which doctors you can and can not attend? With only being able to afford company provided health insurance? With large government patients? Government intervention only plays a very small roll in making health care an industry not run by the basics of free market principles.
Also, most malpractice suits come from issues that exist outside of the doctors control. Even if a doctor does everything right, something can still go wrong.

 

[RDK]

Profit.

Once again, I'm asking you what you mean by this. Are you endorsing that doctors, firemen, and policemen should make no profit whatsoever from their job?

This is no different than what we have now from health insurance companies. It is the company that gives the go ahead on the health care. The issue with a private company doing this is that they make the decision based off of profit margins.

Uh, so? Why should people expect to be treated if they don't have sufficient funds for it? I don't really see your point.

Yet you would want an executive of a company, who has no stake or interest in saving people's lives?

What you're not understanding is that the free market and competition ensure a quality health care in the private sector. It provides incentive, and makes sure that you get what you're paying for. Yes, insurance companies can be exploitative, but I'd sure like to see an aspect of free market that isn't. Which is beside the point, because it oscillates, almost like gas prices. Insurance companies are a business, and they can only afford to make a killing in funds as long as other insurance companies don't raise their prices also. It's basic economics.

as opposed to the privileged Americans who leave the States for health care? Also, France is the health care system that is the closest Obama's plan. Not that you guys care, because you are too busy bringing up points completely irrelevant to new health care plan, comparing to countries with far more government involvement than what Obama has planned.

I couldn't find anything on France, but things are a lot different in Britain:

In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal health care system.

Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."

Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British health care." The reason isn't that we sue more in America and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_307614.html

And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.

Here's the link.

And here's a link to a study done by staff members from Stanford University Medical School. Some of the statistics are interesting.

I am sick, you have the medicine I need. Without medicine, I am likely to die.

So all sickness inevitably leads to death? Interesting. But go on.

The price you set is irrelevant, because my demand will always be the same since there is alternative product, no inferior good. The demand is always equal to 1, meaning that I will buy the product if possible.

Definitely wrong. You're saying no matter where you go, the cost of insurance and the price of medicine will always, without any fluctuation whatsoever, be the same?

I mean that in the the insurance company makes a decision weather or not to let the patient receive treatment, and makes profit off of their decision.
A government's goal is to break even.
A private company wants to make a profit. This is immoral, as well as highly unpractical in a nonelastic demand market.

No, it's not impractical, it breeds innovation. If the insurance company or business running the health care charges too much for said health care, patients can go somewhere else. Like I said before, they can't expect to make a huge killing without sacrificing some of their profit to other businesses. That's how free market works, it tends to balance out to a uneasy equilibrium.

Edit: I made a lot of changes to this post, so make sure you see the final verson before replying.

 

[CRASHiC]

Once again, I'm asking you what you mean by this. Are you endorsing that doctors, firemen, and policemen should make no profit whatsoever from their job?

Making money is different than making profit, I have gone through this in an earlier post on the previous page. Making a salary is not making a profit.

Uh, so? Why should people expect to be treated if they don't have sufficient funds for it? I don't really see your point.

Because someone is making a profit off of them not receiving care.

What you're not understanding is that the free market and competition ensure a quality health care in the private sector. It provides incentive, and makes sure that you get what you're paying for. Yes, insurance companies can be exploitative, but I'd sure like to see an aspect of free market that isn't. Which is beside the point, because it oscillates, almost like gas prices. Insurance companies are a business, and they can only afford to make a killing in funds as long as other insurance companies don't raise their prices also.

Again, on the previous page I specify how the principles of free market do not apply to health care and health insurance.

I couldn't find anything on France, but things are a lot different in Britain:

Its to bad the system Obama is setting up is completely different than what Britain has, and thus, all that info completely irrelevant to the conversation.

So all sickness inevitably leads to death? Interesting. But go on.

Its an anonymous sickness that leads to death, yet has medicine to either supress or cure the illness. Its a hypothetical situation.

Definitely wrong. You're saying no matter where you go, the cost of insurance and the price of medicine will always, without any fluctuation whatsoever, be the same?

Thank god you are a doctor, you would have made a horrible business man.
That's not what inelastic demand is. Its not, wherever you go, the price is the same. Its no matter what the cost, your demand is the same. Because of government patents giving companies ample time to completly take control of a market, health care insurance companies picking the brands of medication you are allowed to choose, and a general lack supply and demand principles, I am limited to my options when buying health care. That person who can provide the health care or medication I need can charge whatever I want, and declare that as the market price.

No, it's not impractical, it breeds innovation. If the insurance company or business running the health care charges too much for said health care, patients can go somewhere else. Like I said before, they can't expect to make a huge killing without sacrificing some of their profit to other businesses. That's how free market works, it tends to balance out to a uneasy equilibrium.

Its too bad medical care does not operate under this system. I've already stated how limited your options are in previous post.
Also, without supply and demand effecting the market, an true market price can not hope to be reached, and the price will always be higher than what would appear in a market with true competition.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

CRASHiC, I don't know about where you live, but here, I have so many options for health care. You keep bringing up these "limited options", but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[AltF4]

I'll throw my opinion into this debate. It interests me because I'm not totally sold one way or another.


Firstly, I don't buy the "Free Market" arguments. Healthcare by it's very nature is not a Free Market. The Free Market requires that we have informed consumers and competitive producers.

When someone's appendix bursts, they are not an informed consumer. No patient is an informed consumer. They need to go to the closest doctor, as soon as possible, no matter the cost. When they arrive at the hospital, patients cannot choose for themselves which doctor they would like based on their credentials. They are assigned a doctor and must stick with him.

Doctors are not competitive. This should be obvious from their exorbitant salaries. In a competitive market, doctors would be forced to lower the price of their services. In a competitive market, patients would not go to doctors with the excessive salaries they have now. There is no reason to see medical doctors earn in excess of $300,000 per year. Specialists and other types of doctors frequently make over $400,000 and even more! And these are not the "top 1%" of salaries, these are the averages.

Doctors don't make their exorbitant salaries because they are well educated or skilled. They make as much as they do because the market is NOT competitive. Engineers with PhD's do not make $400,000 per year. Astrophysicists do not make $300,000 per year. Are they any less educated or skilled?

Completely absurd. Government oversight is necessary for healthcare. A Free Market solution clearly does not exist. I don't see how anyone can argue that healthcare can possibly be a Free Market.


Secondly, I will mention my own (...well, a friend's) personal experience. One of my good IRL friends had appendicitis a few months back. He had all the usual symptoms. Incredible abdominal pain, vomiting, etc...

He is a college student, just starting out. He has student loans, is a bright guy, etc... Like most students, he doesn't have any health insurance.

We take him to the nearest hospital, and he is taken into surgery to remove his appendix by whatever doctor happened to be available at the time. The surgery takes less than a half hour and he's sitting in a hospital bed for the night, leaving the next morning.

Total bill: ****ed for life. He will be paying that bill off for his entire life. He is essentially an indentured servant of the surgeon who "saved" his life.


Is this a system that is not broken? I could just as easily be in the same boat as him. I can't afford health insurance. I'm one broken appendix away from being ****ed for life by medical doctor's bills, too. There must exist a better way.

 

[RDK]

Doctors are not competitive. This should be obvious from their exorbitant salaries. In a competitive market, doctors would be forced to lower the price of their services. In a competitive market, patients would not go to doctors with the excessive salaries they have now. There is no reason to see medical doctors earn in excess of $300,000 per year. Specialists and other types of doctors frequently make over $400,000 and even more! And these are not the "top 1%" of salaries, these are the averages.

What?! I hope you're joking, right?

Those kind of salaries only come if you survive medical school, internship, residency (which only pays slightly over minimum wage), and then maybe after you become an actual physician or open up a private practice or something, as well as not having any successful malpractice suits filed against you during your entire career as a doctor. I'll be extremely lucky if I break even after getting out of medical school! That alone is going to put me hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after you factor in student loans that have to be paid back with interest.

I have no idea where people get this idea that doctors are rich yuppies who own golf courses and yachts, because it's completely unrealistic.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Also, I would argue that doctors generally are more "skilled" than engineers and whatnot. We have the comfort of numbers, testing, etc. to confirm our practice. Doctors have to make best guesses, imprecise measurements, and hopeful solutions. There is much more training involved, and experience in the medical field is much more vital since mistakes are obviously costly.

Just because doctors are making more than surrounding professions (in this case, engineers) does not mean they lack competition.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, you're right. I'm forgetting about the vast amounts of doctors struggling to get by, counting food stamps, on welfare, etc...

Oh, right. There aren't any.


All average salaries, not top:

Surgeons: Average $300,000.

Oral Surgeons: $500,000

Gastroenterologist: $350,000

Anesthesiologists: $311,000

Dentist: $200,000 general practice, $350,000 for a specialist

EDIT: Note that this last quote is from the ADA, and specifically lists that the above salaries are AFTER all expenses. Insurance, tools, rent, assistants, everything. The average dental specialist pulls in just under 1 Million dollars before expenses. So yes. Things like malpractice insurance cost a lot. But it doesn't make it even. Not even close.

Student loans? Malpractice insurance? That doesn't keep the doctor that my fiancee works for from owning a multi-million dollar mansion. (Easily 12,000 sq ft. We've house-sat there) Nor sending each of his three kids to private schools that cost $15,000 per kid per MONTH.

And he is an average dentist. Mid 30's, wasn't top of his class, works only 30 hours a week.


And do you think that being an Engineer is any less difficult than being a medical doctor? Do you think we receive less education or are less skilled? Please. We make less because we exist in a competitive market for jobs in a Free Market.

When I was a freshman, there were just under a thousand students enrolled in my same major at ASU. (It's a big school) When I graduated, there were 85. So don't think I'm not used to a competitive education.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Certainly, there is less competition, but the same could be applied to our field. Given the aggressive competition all over the place, I shouldn't be able to make much money, but I can get epic salary even without a degree. There is simply that much demand despite being so much competition. Granted, I'm trying to finish my degree, so I willfully live in poverty and try to fit school and work together, but I think the principle is generally the same.

But you are right to a point. It's not like hospitals line all of main street in a given town.

 

[AltF4]

Yea, and the job market just sucks right now.

We most certainly can be paid well. In fact, Computer Science was (by averages) the second highest paid major at my school. (Top was Chemical Engineering)

I'm used to being "paid well". But "paid well" to me means $50,000 starting out. Maybe breaking $100,00 or $120,000 at the very top end.

I have a degree right now, but I'm only making around $22,000. Mostly due to me still being in school.

 

[RDK]

Yes, you're right. I'm forgetting about the vast amounts of doctors struggling to get by, counting food stamps, on welfare, etc...

Oh, right. There aren't any.

When did I say that they were poor and were always going to stay that way? My point was that the medical field is extremely stressful, expensive, and an inordinate amount of people don't even make it past the schooling. I personally am going to be in debt until I finish residency, and maybe even longer than that.

All average salaries, not top:

Surgeons: Average $300,000.

Oral Surgeons: $500,000

Gastroenterologist: $350,000

Anesthesiologists: $311,000

Dentist: $200,000 general practice, $350,000 for a specialist

Nice try. Oral surgeon? Gastroenterologist? Those are highly specialized fields of medicine. Regular physicians, diagnosticians, and internists make about half the money a surgeon or anesthesiologist does.

Student loans? Malpractice insurance? That doesn't keep the doctor that my fiancee works for from owning a multi-million dollar mansion. (Easily 12,000 sq ft. We've house-sat there) Nor sending each of his three kids to private schools that cost $15,000 per kid per MONTH.

And he is an average dentist. Mid 30's, wasn't top of his class, works only 30 hours a week.

Born into a wealthy family?

Also, you do understand how much the schooling costs, right? Have I made that clear enough?

 

[AltF4]

When did I say that they were poor and were always going to stay that way? My point was that the medical field is extremely stressful, expensive, and an inordinate amount of people don't even make it past the schooling. I personally am going to be in debt until I finish residency, and maybe even longer than that.

That was a hyperbole. For which I apologize.

Nice try. Oral surgeon? Gastroenterologist? Those are highly specialized fields of medicine. Regular physicians, diagnosticians, and internists make about half the money a surgeon or anesthesiologist does.

But the point remains. Why does an oral surgeon make half a million dollars on average? As opposed to something like $100,000? A hundred thousand a year is "rich" by any standards (not taking into account cost of living, here. Adjust as necessary)

It's pretty clear to me. They do not exist in a Free Market. Oral surgeons simply do not compete with one another. When was the last time you saw an oral surgeon have a sale in order to beat the guy down the street? Never. They can charge just about anything they want, and people have to pay it.

And furthermore, "half the money a surgeon or anesthesiologist does" is still an extraordinary amount.

Born into a wealthy family?

Also, you do understand how much the schooling costs, right? Have I made that clear enough?

Not to my knowledge. But it is only an anecdotal experience, meant to only illustrate the point.

And schooling? Of course it costs a lot. That's true for everyone. A PhD in an engineering field can expect to have $50,000 in student loans easily. After interest, it can be more like $70-80,000. If you go out of state, multiply all of that by 3.



But all of this business about salaries is only a side-point. The main thing here is that I am asserting that the healthcare field is not, and cannot be, a Free Market. It contains none of the elements that are required for a market. Informed consumers, consumers with Free choice, competitive producers, etc...

In a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost. What do you suppose is the marginal cost of removing a kid's appendix and keeping him overnight? What is the cost of the medicine they used on him? The supplies, etc...

Is it enough to bankrupt someone for life?

 

[Deleted member]

Alt, your friend with appendicitis would have paid close to or exactly 0 dollars if he was covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan).

My own scenario - my aunt just had a triple bypass surgery and was treated by the best heart surgeon in the country. Total bill? Parking. PARKING. Wait time? Less than a month, at the most. Had she not been covered by OHIP, which we all pay for in our taxes, she would have been ****ed for life and would not be able to afford the lawyers that are fighting her (broke) daughter's custody battles.

I just got a prescription of medication - again, total bill - $0. I love this ****ing country. I should take a picture of my pill bottle where it says "$0 Dollars"

 

[GoldShadow]

Okay, this is getting off topic but I feel it needs to be addressed.

Total bill: ****ed for life. He will be paying that bill off for his entire life. He is essentially an indentured servant of the surgeon who "saved" his life.

That money's not going to the surgeon, at least not directly. I assume the surgeon works with a hospital or IPA (Independent Practice Association) or a hospital owned by an HMO. He is probably paid per procedure, or salaried. The rest of that money is going to the hospital/IPA to pay for overhead, salaries/wages, administrative costs, maintenance, bills, equipment, etc. I don't know why you have a beef with a surgeon who literally saved your friend's life. Blame the unacceptable inefficencies in hospital administration and the extremely poor, complicated reimbursement by insurance companies that forces so many hospitals to charge so much. It's easy to blame the doctors because they're the ones on the front line, the ones that people deal with, even if they have little to do with the problem.

Doctors' pay doesn't even constitute the majority of medical bills and expenditures, only ~10% of the national health care budget. Cutting doctors pay by even 10 or 20% would barely put a dent in the national budget, but it would hurt a lot of medical professionals.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/do-doctors-salaries-drive-up-health-care-costs/

Yes, you're right. I'm forgetting about the vast amounts of doctors struggling to get by, counting food stamps, on welfare, etc...

Oh, right. There aren't any.

Nobody's claiming that doctors are poor. But except for a select few, they don't live decadent lives like people think they do.

Student loans? Malpractice insurance? That doesn't keep the doctor that my fiancee works for from owning a multi-million dollar mansion. (Easily 12,000 sq ft. We've house-sat there) Nor sending each of his three kids to private schools that cost $15,000 per kid per MONTH.

And he is an average dentist. Mid 30's, wasn't top of his class, works only 30 hours a week.

To quote yourself:

And these are not the "top 1%" of salaries, these are the averages.

Come on, you must realize that the vast majority do not live like the guy you've described.

All average salaries, not top:

Surgeons: Average $300,000.

Oral Surgeons: $500,000

Gastroenterologist: $350,000

Anesthesiologists: $311,000

Dentist: $200,000 general practice, $350,000 for a specialist

Also, those numbers are heavily inflated. I'm not sure about the website you got them from, but I'm much more apt to trust this one:
Dentists, General: $154,270
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons: $190,420
Orthodontists: $194,930
Prosthodontists: $169,810
Dentists, All Other Specialists: $142,070
Anesthesiologists: $197,570
Family and General Practitioners: $161,490
Internists, General: $176,740
Obstetricians and Gynecologists: $192,780
Pediatricians, General: $153,370
Psychiatrists: $154,050
Surgeons: $206,770
Physicians and Surgeons, All Other: $165,000

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000

Besides, you're not looking at the full picture here. Medical students accrue about $250,000 in debt over the course of 4 years. Not only are they losing a quarter million in debt and loans (plus interest), they are losing 4 years of earning and advancement potential had they started working straight out of college.
Next comes residency, 3-7 years of being paid a little above minimum wage for 80+ hour weeks. You're forgetting that doctors get paid more, but most tend to work the equivalent of more than one full time job (and are forced to work the equivalent of two during residency). On an hourly basis, they are paid pretty poorly.
You're also forgetting malpractice insurance. Some of the docs you've quoted with the highest earning potential also pay the most in malpractice insurance ($100,000-$300,000 for neurosurgeons, for instance http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105599.php).
There's also the fact that many people overlook: doctors' salaries have not kept up with inflation. From 1995-2003, doctors' incomes dropped 7% adjusted for inflation while other nonphysician professionals' incomes grew by 7% (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/07/24/prsc0724.htm).
And insurance reimbursements are only declining, paperwork is increasing, and doctors have less time to see more patients.

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/1998/11/stagnant.htm


In fact, a UPS driver who starts working straight out of high school and works the same number of hours as a doctor does will earn more after 26 years (yes there are a lot of variables, but the point stands). This is an interesting take:
http://www.er-doctor.com/doctor_income.html
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...ician-compensation-economics.html#post2418043


You're also discounting the emotional and physical toll that the highest earning (and generally most stressful) fields take: comparatively poor physical health and higher divorce and burnout rates (https://www.aans.org/library/Article.aspx?ArticleId=51346).

I also suggest that people read this for a perspective on the state of modern healthcare:
http://akifox.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-do-doctors-get-paid.html

 

[CRASHiC]

Okay, this is getting off topic but I feel it needs to be addressed.

Actually, this is going ON topic finally, as one of Obamas plans is to reduce the staggering cost of health care. Though I do not feel it is of the doctors blaim at all, because as you said, they are not setting treatment cost, and their paychecks are not directly influenced by what the person pays.

In fact, a UPS driver who starts working straight out of high school and works the same number of hours as a doctor does will earn more after 26 years (yes there are a lot of variables, but the point stands). This is an interesting take:
http://www.er-doctor.com/doctor_income.html
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ml#post2418043

Their are a few issues I have with this. Truck drivers is arguably one of the most difficult jobs. My uncle was a truck driver for only a year, but the mental toll, physical toll, as well as the loss of his wife is very common amongst truck drivers, was obvious to him within this year. Its easy to laugh off the job of a truck driver, but face it, they toil, suffer, and are in high demand. You argue that doctors toil, well truck drivers toil just as much, dealing with thieves, endless hours, dangerious work conditions, emotional and physical drain, as well as issues with maintaining any sort of social life, including a family.

Another problem is that the average American does not make 60,000 thousand out of high school. Many college graduates do not make that much upon graduation.
Median income -- $24,325

Mean income -- $35,499

that's average income.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new01_001.htm
in 2006.

Also, in the second chart, it takes in bank interest.
An auto mechanic is not going to have the expendable income to be able to put away money in a bank account, and the chances of finding a 7% savings account is unlikely.

However, the points made about how medical care does not operate on free market principles stands true.

 

[GoldShadow]

Another problem is that the average American does not make 60,000 thousand out of high school. Many college graduates do not make that much upon graduation.
Median income -- $24,325

Mean income -- $35,499

that's average income.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new01_001.htm
in 2006.

Oh yeah, $60,000 a year out of high school would be ridiculous, but if you note, the chart doesn't imply that. The chart implies an average of $60,000 a year based on total lifetime earnings divided by number of years worked. If we use this chart as a general ballpark:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Truck_Driver%2c_Light_Or_Delivery_Services/Salary

We can set up a simple table of annual earnings for 27 years using estimated values from that graph.

Using $30000 for year one, $38000 for years 2-4, $45000 for years 5-9, $57000 for years 10-19, and $65000 for years 20-27, we get a lifetime total earnings of $1,459,000. Divide this by 27 years and you get about $54,000 a year, average, over the course of 27 years. This is a conservative estimate. The average UPS driver earned $55,000 a year in 2006, but up to $70,000 including overtime (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/22/ups_drivers_avoid_blue_collar_union_blues/).

Of course, if cases like this are common, then the amount one could earn as a UPS driver is even more: http://www.careerleak.com/UPS/ups-driver-jobs-careers-salary-interview.html

This profile says that he started off at $16/hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week for a full year, that's $33280 annually right off the bat. He goes on to say that after 4 years he is earning $27/hour (plus overtime and 401k benefits, which the average doc does not get through their employment). That translates to $56160 a year after just 4 years (not counting overtime/benefits), which is a lot more than the conservative estimates I used in my calculations.

So the idea of averaging $60,000 annual earnings as a driver is plausible, and the actual number would probably be even higher. Then multiply that by 1.5 or 2 to account for an equivalent number of hours worked to docs.

 

[GoldShadow]

Their are a few issues I have with this. Truck drivers is arguably one of the most difficult jobs. My uncle was a truck driver for only a year, but the mental toll, physical toll, as well as the loss of his wife is very common amongst truck drivers, was obvious to him within this year. Its easy to laugh off the job of a truck driver, but face it, they toil, suffer, and are in high demand. You argue that doctors toil, well truck drivers toil just as much, dealing with thieves, endless hours, dangerious work conditions, emotional and physical drain, as well as issues with maintaining any sort of social life, including a family.

Just wanted to add, I was not trying to trivialize truck drivers' jobs or "laugh off the job" by any means. And if truck drivers' jobs are stressful as well (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/220886/confessions_of_a_truck_drivers_wife.html?cat=41), then it only makes the comparison stronger. I was simply pointing out that if one wants to make a lot of money or "be rich" in the traditional sense, then medicine is the wrong route. There are easier ways to make money.

 

[CRASHiC]

I strongly agree with the basic notions that doctors are not paid hugely and lavishly. If I had somehow refuted a claim about this, I apologize previously, though I still stand that they are slightly (only slightly) over payed, and could afford a very slight pay drop to help companies lower prices. An across the board pay cut of about only perhaps 5 to 10 thousand would save the industry much more money and allow price cuts, as opposed to the alternative of cutting equipment.

 

[GoldShadow]

I strongly agree with the basic notions that doctors are not paid hugely and lavishly.

Well I'm glad we agree on one point!

though I still stand that they are slightly (only slightly) over payed, and could afford a very slight pay drop to help companies lower prices. An across the board pay cut of about only perhaps 5 to 10 thousand would save the industry much more money and allow price cuts, as opposed to the alternative of cutting equipment.

I think that, instead of cutting from salaries, we should implement other forms of cost control.

I'm with Obama in that we should streamline things and increase efficiency. I do not believe we should raise taxes on upper income households (the progressive tax is steep enough already), and Obama should absolutely not cut federal payments to doctors/hospitals/insurers (Medicaid and Medicare reimburse so little as it is that many doctors are being forced to reject Medicare/Medicaid patients altogether).

Better ways to increase efficiency include implementing effective IT infrastructure (computerized records, communication between docs/hospitals/pharmacies, etc) which would save about $78 billion a year (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.10/DC1), which is already part of Obama's plan, and focusing a lot more on prevention, which is only to a smaller extent part of Obama's plan.

 

[Aesir]

What?! I hope you're joking, right?

Those kind of salaries only come if you survive medical school, internship, residency (which only pays slightly over minimum wage), and then maybe after you become an actual physician or open up a private practice or something, as well as not having any successful malpractice suits filed against you during your entire career as a doctor. I'll be extremely lucky if I break even after getting out of medical school! That alone is going to put me hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after you factor in student loans that have to be paid back with interest.

This! Bolded!

You ask any doctor, regardless of their political ideology they'll get heated over this. Our doctors have to constantly watch their backs because you can be sued for anything.

I'll give you guys a hypothetical scenario, lets say there's a drug that gives a mother a higher chance of having a healthier baby, there are no negative side effects for the mother or the baby. The doctor gives the mother the treatment without her consent, now when the mother finds out, she has every right to sue that doctor.

Forget if that's right or wrong because it doesn't matter, because we all know that's wrong.

To bring this all together for the people who can't connect the dots, one of the reasons why health care costs are so much is because of litigation costs, doctors have to raise their prices incredibly high because of the possibility of malpractice law suits. Glad some people are bringing this up, probably the only thing I'm agreeing with on the opposition.

I skimmed most of this thread and I'm going to interject here for a moment hopefully a lot of you will look at this with an open mind and not give me ideological punch lines. Health care should be a basic human right, much like anything else we take for granted.

What we really should do since we're only industrialized nation to not cover all of our citizens is look at EVERY single universal plan, and bring together all these ideas and come up with a good solid plan.

a free market approach isn't the trick here, usually I would be more open to Market Economics however when it comes to health care a for profit system is a disaster waiting to happen.

While it's true our system isn't a free market, similar out comes will happen if it were a free market; Poor won't be able to afford health care, and the insurance companies will be able to ration care away from them to the richer more healthier members. Why? It's good business.

Unless you want to mandate how those companies cover people. If that's the case it's not really a free market approach anymore is it? Furthermore it wouldn't be a real solution because those companies would just go to the fed again to remove those regulations and we would just be repeating the same problem again.

A system where we have a public option that covers all Americans, the public options primary purpose should stress prevention. Then covers whatever health problems arise. if however the public option cannot adequately cover your illness there's always the private insurers who will be able to offer you coverage.


The cost of a public option won't even be an issue. The money is already in our GDP it's just putting that money to better usage as opposed to spending it on subsidizing the health care industry.

 

[Deleted member]

While the States is known for being retardedly litigious, I'm quite confident that if health care were paid for by taxes, you wouldn't have Average Joes suing doctors for malpractice. For some, it's the only way they can fight your ****ed up system - suing the guy who's billing them for something they should receive automatically. Hell, I would.