Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Start Of National Healthcare  
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Who says we have to wait for Hillary to be President? Kennedycare is just around the corner.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_health

Two absolute problems I have with this....

"The state of Massachusetts employs a combination of subsidies and penalties to make the insurance more affordable and to force people to buy it."

I don't need government forcing me to buy something I may not want. But if they are going to force it on me....

"Members of the House and Senate have a guaranteed health plan for ourselves and our families," Kennedy said in his prepared remarks. "It's time to provide the same guarantee for every man, woman and child in the nation."

Then give me that same plan. One that pays all the costs with no deductible. One that doesn't require a gigantic bureaucracy that sucks up far more in funds than the actual healthcare. Does anyone think that any Congressman or Senator has some bureaucrat questioning whether they should be able to get some test done?

I hope this fall flat on it's face.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
"The state of Massachusetts employs a combination of subsidies and penalties to make the insurance more affordable and to force people to buy it."

I don't need government forcing me to buy something I may not want. But if they are going to force it on me....

Don't blame Ted on this one - he's not the only one pushing this kind of plan. The Governator in CA is making the same pitch for mandatory health insurance coverage there.

Mandatory health insurance isn't all that far fetched of an idea. After all, states currently require you to have insurance for your car if you want to operate it, and home mortgage lenders won't give you a mortgage without insurance - making health insurance mandatory may be an idea whose time has come.

What I would object to is a mandatory federal one size fits all plan. I would be completely opposed to that, knowing the propensity of the federal government to screw things up.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Then give me that same plan. One that pays all the costs with no deductible. One that doesn't require a gigantic bureaucracy that sucks up far more in funds than the actual healthcare. Does anyone think that any Congressman or Senator has some bureaucrat questioning whether they should be able to get some test done?

 rotfl  you are kidding, right? You really think Congress is going to give John Q. Public the same sweet health care plan that they enjoy?


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
Mandatory health insurance isn't all that far fetched of an idea. After all, states currently require you to have insurance for your car if you want to operate it, and home mortgage lenders won't give you a mortgage without insurance - making health insurance mandatory may be an idea whose time has come.

I agree, I am one who thinks health insurance is more important than car insurance and homeowners. You are probably 5x more likely to use your health coverage than the other two.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
"Members of the House and Senate have a guaranteed health plan for ourselves and our families," Kennedy said in his prepared remarks. "It's time to provide the same guarantee for every man, woman and child in the nation."

Then give me that same plan. One that pays all the costs with no deductible. One that doesn't require a gigantic bureaucracy that sucks up far more in funds than the actual healthcare. Does anyone think that any Congressman or Senator has some bureaucrat questioning whether they should be able to get some test done?

I agree, it is time for congress to put its money where its mouth is.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
I hope this fall flat on it's face.

It will, I doubt it will pass the senate and probably not the house, but Bush will veto this in a heartbeat if it does. How can we wage two wars, cut taxes and provide universal healthcare. I am not an economist, but I can balance my own checkbook, and that just doesnt add up.

edited for spelling

[Edited 2007-01-10 19:58:16]

User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
After all, states currently require you to have insurance for your car if you want to operate it, and home mortgage lenders won't give you a mortgage without insurance - making health insurance mandatory may be an idea whose time has come.

Bad comparisons. The state requires me to have auto insurance because of the harm I may do to others. Lack of health insurance harms no one but myself (and family if I have one). That is, assuming an illness that has the potential to wipe out the savings. The lenders require home owners insurance to protect their investment. Their giving their money to use, they can attach any strings they want. I get to decide whether or not to accept their terms.

All this is a a way to grow government and take more from my bottomline. It will limit the health care I can get unless I'm willing to put out more money.

My father lives in a country with nationalized healthcare. A few years ago I dealt with this healthcare system when my mom got sick and died as I was visiting. Let me say this very clearly, nationalized health care sucks.

[Edited 2007-01-10 20:15:06]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
"Members of the House and Senate have a guaranteed health plan for ourselves and our families," Kennedy said in his prepared remarks. "It's time to provide the same guarantee for every man, woman and child in the nation."

Then give me that same plan. One that pays all the costs with no deductible. One that doesn't require a gigantic bureaucracy that sucks up far more in funds than the actual healthcare. Does anyone think that any Congressman or Senator has some bureaucrat questioning whether they should be able to get some test done?

For once we're on the same page. One of the easiest things Congress could do to gain the public's trust and respect is to strike every exemption they've made for themselves and immediately apply the same rules & regs governing every other federal employee to Congress. Of course that will never happen.

As for universal health care, as already noted, mandatory insurance is already required when its purpose is to protect lenders, etc., so why shouldn't protecting the citizens of this country carry the same importance. After looking at various models, I think I like the Swiss model the best, with its combination of minimum mandatory coverage, optional private coverage and subsidization for those in need.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 3):
The state requires me to have auto insurance because of the harm I may do to others.

While this may be the official reason, the concept and all of the muscle that got these laws into place came from the auto insurance industry.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20732 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 3):
Lack of health insurance harms no one but myself (and family if I have one).

I disagree with this. The lack of proper health care is cited globally for reductions in productivity in the workplace, rises in deaths per live births, and lower performance in schools.

For a strong economy, we must have healthy workers who can perform. That's such a basic principle, it should be understood by all. Everyone is affected by a poor economy.

The proposal in the linked article quoted a premium of $295 per month, but did not specify the benefits one would derive from that. How I wish the health insurance I self-finance was so reasonably priced.

I'm willing to hear more about these proposals before saying it's a bad idea.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 4):
While this may be the official reason, the concept and all of the muscle that got these laws into place came from the auto insurance industry.

And you're thinking the health insurance industry isn't salivating at the chance to insure EVERY person in the US. Hell, if they cut their premiums to 10% of what they get now, it'll be a windfall. By the way, will the Congress go after them for a "windfall tax?"



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6):
And you're thinking the health insurance industry isn't salivating at the chance to insure EVERY person in the US.

If they were, they would have already made multiple proposals for how to do so. The health insurance industry is the biggest impediment to universal coverage, because they are terrified they will be devastated by any such plan. Their lobby in Washington is huge and powerful. If they wanted to insure everyone, it would have happened a long time ago.



I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Let's be clear on this; in the US a basic level of health care is available to everyone. A hospital may not turn you away if you can't pay. Does this mean they will treat you the same as a paying patient? No, it does not. They must treat you to a basic level of health.

My insurance package is a part of my compensation package. I work hard for that compensation package and I have traded off salary to have health insurance.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
I disagree with this. The lack of proper health care is cited globally for reductions in productivity in the workplace, rises in deaths per live births, and lower performance in schools.

And universal health care will make for a healthier society? No, getting our lazy asses off the couch will make a healthier and more productive society.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
premium of $295 per month

Be wary of anything that quotes a price so early. By the way, that's more than I pay now, and my guess is that this premium doesn't even cover the increase in tax. A little selfish, but, part of my equation.

Look, I've been exposed to national healthcare in Europe. My father lives in Greece, where there is national healthcare. My father pays extra to see a competent doctor. My father paid extra to have the doctor of HIS choice perform bypass surgery in the hospital of HIS choice. When my mom was sick, all my father wanted to know was which doctor he could pay money to in order for them to take care of her at 'a higher level' as he put it. Sorry, as I saw my mom move from sick to dead and all the hoops my dad jumps through in order to get the healthcare he wants vs. what's available, I choose private healthcare.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 3):
Bad comparisons. The state requires me to have auto insurance because of the harm I may do to others. Lack of health insurance harms no one but myself (and family if I have one).

No, it harms the rest of us who do pay for our health care, because we pay higher costs to subsidize you when you show up at the emergency room with no insurance.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 3):
My father lives in a country with nationalized healthcare. A few years ago I dealt with this healthcare system when my mom got sick and died as I was visiting. Let me say this very clearly, nationalized health care sucks.

Agree 100%. But mandatory health insurance doesn't mean nationalized health care.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
I disagree with this. The lack of proper health care is cited globally for reductions in productivity in the workplace, rises in deaths per live births, and lower performance in schools.

 checkmark 

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 8):
Let's be clear on this; in the US a basic level of health care is available to everyone. A hospital may not turn you away if you can't pay. Does this mean they will treat you the same as a paying patient? No, it does not.

Why should I have to pay for the health care of people who don't feel like paying for health insurance?


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

Quoting Dvk (Reply 7):
If they wanted to insure everyone, it would have happened a long time ago.

Their biggest fear is government regulation of the premiums. If they could FORCE, through legislation, the mandatory coverage of all residents without the government telling them what theu could charge, they'd jump all over it. Hell, premiums would probably go down, but the government would grow and it would take it's peice of the pie. And of course, those residents that couldn't pay, would receive a government hand out (in the form of premium vouchers or some such nonsense) which of course would come from an extra tax.

The government wouldn't stop there. Since it is not under writing healthcare, it would decide how much a provider could charge, or more to the point, how much it would reimburse the proviser (much like insurance companies do now). You want to see quality healthcare collapse in the US? Allow the government to set prices.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
Agree 100%. But mandatory health insurance doesn't mean nationalized health care.

Slippery slope. It will happen.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
Why should I have to pay for the health care of people who don't feel like paying for health insurance?

That's my argument. The government will force you to pay your neighbor's premium through taxation.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
No, it harms the rest of us who do pay for our health care, because we pay higher costs to subsidize you when you show up at the emergency room with no insurance.

Your're correct. But you don't pay that through higher premiums, as you do with car insurance, you pay that through LOCAL taxes. If I show up without insurance AND no means to pay, I am treated and the hospital absorbs the cost. If it is public hospital, the local treasury absorbs the the hospitals cost. If it is a private hospital, the cost is absorbed by the hospital. I've heard (no citation, here) that they may then petition the local government for reimbursement or they may carry insurance for the default. Or they may just eat it and pass the cost on to the paying customer.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20732 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 8):
Let's be clear on this; in the US a basic level of health care is available to everyone.

Okay, let's be very clear on this. Catastrophic care is available to everyone, preventive and maintenance care is not.

For me, if I was not able to pay $420/mo for my premium, a $750 annual deductible, 20% of the expenses incurred, and fairly high co-pays for medication, or be able to pay full retail for my health care needs, I'd literally be living under Burnside Bridge, because I can't even get up in the morning without a large enough dose of painkillers that would probably send you to the ER after the first pill.

Charity care would not cover these services.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 8):
Be wary of anything that quotes a price so early. By the way, that's more than I pay now, and my guess is that this premium doesn't even cover the increase in tax. A little selfish, but, part of my equation.

Until I see the details, I can't throw my total support for it, but I can support the effort to bring fair and equitable health care to everyone in need of it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Mandatory health insurance is a much better solution than socialized medicine. This way, we can harness the benefits of the free market and provide health care coverage simultaneously. The poor still get coverage under Medicaid, the elderly under Medicare and the rest of us can get health care from privately owned companies and organizations.

We should try to prevent the need for a government run health care. This is an excellent way to do it.

AAndrew


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

My two cents here; the health care system is the United States will have to change, and one can agrue until they are blue in the face about keeping goverment out the insurance business. The biggest supporter of changing the present system is businesses large and small. Large investors would like to see more profit i.e better return yet with the increase costs of health care its not happening. I forsee a single payer system where the amount that he now pay will go to one source, most like a government agency, but you will still be able to pick the health plan and coverge of YOUR choice. In theory, doing it this way should save some money but only time will tell.

User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1208 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 10):
Allow the government to set prices.

The federal government already sets prices, albeit indirectly. Virtually all insurers follow the leads in pricing and reimbursement set by Medicare. It keeps private insurers from being charged for price gouging. This has been the case for as long as I've been practicing medicine.

[Edited 2007-01-10 22:36:05]


I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

Ultimately we'll see some sort of national health care system, maybe not in my lifetime. The biggest problem with market based approaches I see is, how do you force people to go out and buy health insurance?

I mean, 25 per cent of the motorists in California do not have insurance, so it seems that the project of telling people they've got to have insurance to drive is foolish. Whether they have insurance, a driver's license, and a safe car doesn't matter....how many illegal aliens are going to comply? Ths simple answer is, they don't, and they won't pay for health insurance like they're supposed to either.

But they'll still present at the emergency room and they'll still have to be treated.

The problem of national health care isn't an insurance problem, it's a poverty and income problem. What we have right now is fine for those who can pay for it.

I'd like to see the burden of legacy health care costs lifted from industry...I think GM would be a lot more competitive if they weren't absorbing $2,000 on every vehicle they produce.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20732 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 14):
Large investors would like to see more profit i.e better return yet with the increase costs of health care its not happening.

Which was the basis for creating the HMO model and their health care protocols that gave bonuses for restricting care, under the guise of providing better health care for a lower cost.

I'm not convinced that unlimited access to every new drug or procedure is a cost that should be shared by all. There needs to be some type of review for what is appropriate and necessary, especially for high-cost services.

In my case, I'm a patient at a pain clinic that is nothing other than a patient mill to squeeze as much money out of patients and insurance companies as possible. General practitioners and internists like it, because it relieves them of the scrutiny for handing out heaps of narcotics. I put up with it to keep my prescriptions coming, but not without fighting them on every detail of "over-doctoring". My initial consultation, that was nothing other than spending 30 minutes with a doctor who reviewed my file, then turned me over to a physician's assistant to write all further Rx's, was billed out at nearly $700 (!!). I have to return every two months for another office visit to check on my status, that's billed out at $175 (initially, I had to go every month).

Nearly every month they want me to come in for extra services or refer me out to other physicians within their group. They even hired a college student for a month over the summer to do nothing other than call every patient to schedule a bone density test in their new facility.

As patients and consumers of health care, we must also open our eyes and be prudent as to what services we utilize, and understand that unlimited access to every treatment is neither good for the system, or at times, even good for us as patients. I'm sure that the clinic I visit have turned patients into legalized drug addicts who are psychologically dependent upon the clinic, and agree to any procedure or visit without question just to keep the flow of the essential parts of their care coming without interruption.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 14):
I forsee a single payer system where the amount that he now pay will go to one source, most like a government agency, but you will still be able to pick the health plan and coverge of YOUR choice. In theory, doing it this way should save some money but only time will tell.

So you're saying that a patient should buy coverage from XYZ Insurance Company, who will then pay money to the government. Are you suggesting the government should own the health care facilities or just compensate them?

AAndrew


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Similar to whats in place today. If your employer offers an option for medical coverage, lets say Companies A, B and C. You pick which one you want, the your share of the premimuns go to one spot. When the doctor's office bills they are having to deal with a million different companies, they sent the bill to one central billing location.

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

This is really about what the traffic will bear.

Part of the problem we have here is every Tom Dick and Harry who graduated from the Pasteur Institoot of Medikkle Seance in Weeping Water, Nebraska thinks they're automatically worth a quarter million when they hang out a shingle. They're convinced they're worth it, and they've convinced the rest of us too.

Another component of this issue is the insurance companies. They get inflated bills from the medical people and they add their fifty per cent markup and pass the problem along to the person who has to get the insurance or go without.

Yet another component of this problem is the fact that doctors are deathly afraid of malpractice suits, and they thus order everything on the menu to cover their asses. They're getting gouged by the insurance companies too, by the way.

Yet another component of this problem is the inflated prices people have to pay for meds-far in excess of what folks in other countries pay for the same meds from the same factories.

Still more fat is added to the fire when people who can't pay and can't get insurance need treatment. They're not all illegal aliens either. People who have had cancer or who have chronic debilitating illnesses can't get insurance at any price. So they present at the emergency room and the cost gets passed on to theose who can pay.

Another part of this problem is the AMA which has a bitch of a monopoly on medical certification

Every part of this dagwood sandwich of an issue raises the bottom line for any available sources of revenue-sometimes it's the ratepayers, sometimes it's the employers, sometimes it's the estate when the guy dies.

Nobody really seems to have a handle on it, and market mechanisms have not done much for controlling prices.

As a start, the best medicine and treatment is none. That's right, take care of your body and avoid the company of physicians. Another avenue to cut costs is to institute a system of low cost health care providers like China's barefoot doctors. We don't need a guy with ten years of education to put three stitches in a cut, for heaven's sake.


User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1121 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):

Part of the problem we have here is every Tom Dick and Harry who graduated from the Pasteur Institoot of Medikkle Seance in Weeping Water, Nebraska thinks they're automatically worth a quarter million when they hang out a shingle. They're convinced they're worth it, and they've convinced the rest of us too.

Most family practice physicians make about $130,000 a year. Any physician that takes care of me is worth $250,000 a year. If we can spend a few million bucks a year to watch some high school graduate play football, we can probably swing $250,000 a year for our doctors.

I think we will, however, see a lot of non-physician providers, mainly Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):
Yet another component of this problem is the fact that doctors are deathly afraid of malpractice suits, and they thus order everything on the menu to cover their asses. They're getting gouged by the insurance companies too, by the way.

This is a major issue. My town now has one obstetrics physician and a Certified Nurse Midwife. The rest of the OB/GYNs now practice only gynecology. This is mainly due to Pennslyvania's insane malpractice rates.

For the record, OB/GYN malpractice insurance in Florida averages $200,000 a year.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):

Another part of this problem is the AMA which has a bitch of a monopoly on medical certification

I don't see the problem with this. ANCC has a monopoly on certifying most Nurse Practitioners, AANA has a monopoly on certifying nurse anesthetists, etc.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):

As a start, the best medicine and treatment is none. That's right, take care of your body and avoid the company of physicians. Another avenue to cut costs is to institute a system of low cost health care providers like China's barefoot doctors. We don't need a guy with ten years of education to put three stitches in a cut, for heaven's sake.

It's somewhat dangerous not to visit a doctor routinely. Evidence shows that if everyone got their annual physical and the tests that go along with it, money would be saved due to early diagnosis of disorders.

And I want the person taking care of me, no matter how simple it is, to be well educated. Yes, a PA or an NP can easily stitch a cut just as well as an MD, and I think we'll be moving towards that for simple problems.

AAndrew


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

Revamp the insurance and legal (malpractice) systems and much of our healthcare issues will be solved.

Insurance companies dictate too much about what doctors should and should not do. I experienced this a few years back when I was having some debilatating health issues. I kind of had an idea of what was wrong with me (from researching it) but the first 3 doctors I went to refused to give me the specified test to confirm it because I "didn't fit the profile" (age wise). Translation: Insurance won't agree to pay this because actuarial data will say I am unlikely to have this condition.

So they prescribed all sorts of other things, yet I didn't get any better.

Finally, I found a doctor with specialized expertise w/the issue I was concerned about. He did the proper testing and guess what, my suspicions were correct. I have been on the proper treatment now for 3+ years and feel better at age 39 than I did at 25.


User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):
Part of the problem we have here is every Tom Dick and Harry who graduated from the Pasteur Institoot of Medikkle Seance in Weeping Water, Nebraska thinks they're automatically worth a quarter million when they hang out a shingle.

This is largely myth. Physician salaries are a small blip on the radar screen of what drives up the cost of health care, and salaries haven't increased nearly as rapidly as the cost of virtually every other component of health care. Quarter of a million? Most physicians in primary care specialties don't make anywhere near that much.



I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1099 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20):
Another part of this problem is the AMA which has a bitch of a monopoly on medical certification

This is not true. Physicians are certified by their various specialty boards, which are not part of the AMA. The boards are all independent of each other. My certification is through the American Board of Internal Medicine, which has no connection with the AMA or any other specialty board.



I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Start Of The Weekend Funnies posted Sat Mar 15 2003 16:23:59 by Silverfox
If I Was The Coach Of My National Team (football): posted Tue Jun 25 2002 20:04:20 by LY772
Notes From The Edge Of Humanity posted Sun Dec 17 2006 12:23:53 by AerospaceFan
Fight Back -- Or, The Decline Of Customer Service posted Sat Dec 16 2006 23:44:12 by AerospaceFan
Ahmet Ertegun - The King Of Music. We Salute You! posted Sat Dec 16 2006 08:37:35 by Virgin744
Fry Eggs In The Shape Of A Cock posted Thu Dec 14 2006 22:38:27 by 9V
The Dangers Of Aspartame posted Sun Dec 10 2006 06:29:02 by NWDC10
The Horrors Of Extraordinary Rendition posted Wed Dec 6 2006 22:01:20 by 9V
Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Federal Dollars posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:00:11 by RJdxer
Deciding The Rest Of My Life...... posted Tue Nov 28 2006 05:28:42 by Speedbird747BA