BF2S Forums U.S. health care reform

Uzique wrote:

uuum, of course we do. one of my earlier posts on this page mentions a specialist. what does that have to do with anything? becoming a specialist is responding to supply and demand? you really believe a doctor decides to become a neurosurgeon or a heart surgeon because demand outstrips supply, and he can make more money? you really think that's the prime motivating factor? that simply isn't the case for the medical profession here. it's not viewed with the same 'how can i make the most money' sorta lucrative-mindset.

you'd do well to actually read the discussion going on next time as well, instead of jumping in with the questioning of an obtuse mong.

http://www.empire-locums.co.uk/doctor-salary.asp

Why aren't they paid the same then?

And why is there a 100k difference within each individual specialty?

Pug wrote:

Uzique wrote:

uuum, of course we do. one of my earlier posts on this page mentions a specialist. what does that have to do with anything? becoming a specialist is responding to supply and demand? you really believe a doctor decides to become a neurosurgeon or a heart surgeon because demand outstrips supply, and he can make more money? you really think that's the prime motivating factor? that simply isn't the case for the medical profession here. it's not viewed with the same 'how can i make the most money' sorta lucrative-mindset.

you'd do well to actually read the discussion going on next time as well, instead of jumping in with the questioning of an obtuse mong.

http://www.empire-locums.co.uk/doctor-salary.asp

Why aren't they paid the same then?

And why is there a 100k difference within each individual specialty?

because like every profession there is seniority? that's like asking why an office clerk has a £100k salary discrepancy with his floor supervisor. entry-level medical students that have only just gone into the field have a starting salary around £30k. that's roughly the same as someone starting out in post-doctoral academia. senior and experienced head surgeons or chief consultants will be making the six-figures, roughly equivalent to the tenured professor position. no shit there's a pay difference. how are you presenting that as a flaw of the socialist system? are you saying private healthcare doesn't reward and pay in terms of seniority, as well? cause if you are claiming that, it sure goes against everything galt ever said about the individual bargaining his own pay...

also i am never denying that different specialists make different amounts of money. my point is seldom the motivation. every medical specialist lives very comfortably. i really don't think someone will make the choice of one specialism over the other because of an arbitrary supply-demand mechanic, or because the gastroencologist is making £6,000 more a year than the diabetic specialist already making £136k. come on, be real. this is an extremely facile line of argument.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-21 07:05:03)

Uzique wrote:

i really don't think someone will make the choice of one specialism over the other because of an arbitrary supply-demand mechanic, or because the gastroencologist is making £6,000 more a year than the diabetic specialist already making £136k. come on, be real. this is an extremely facile line of argument.

If there's no demand for that specialty, do you really think someone will put in the years of training for it? Of course not. They will look toward another specialty, where they know there is a demand, and thus work for them post-training. It's completely following the tenets of supply-demand.

And notice I didn't mention pay at all?

Uzique wrote:

Pug wrote:

http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/features/hospital-doctors-pay-scales-for-20092010

ahh nevermind.  doctors are government workers completely if they are being managed like that.

private organisations have pay-scales too. a private organisation in a time of financial crisis will take safety measures such as pay freezes, too, for the wider good of the companies books. both private and government employed professionals organise into unions and protest/debate the conditions of their employment - and they are listened to equally. really your only problem here is with the fact that these directives are coming from 'the government' instead of 'the board of directors'. it's semantic. it has no big difference on the operation either way.

Well...regarding your "board of directors" comment...

Sort of.  The difference is profit versus standardization.

Aka, a government run medical group will tend to focus on normal treatment procedures instead of developing new ones.

There really is no way to compare the UK system to the current US system, based on the amount of government management.

And frankly I'm a little confused that what I'm guessing is your general sense that government standardization is a great solution.  It's been a while...are you a socialist?

Uzique wrote:

no i'm not a socialist, i just believe that standardization in the interests of offering good health treatment is a better option than the alternative that you title 'profit'. call me a dirty commie but i don't like to hear the term 'profit' used in the context of an institution that serves a fundamental humanistic principle. humanism is not corporatism.

i'm not condemning u.

i'm not able to answer for the UK, but my feeling is that the US gov't has a history of messing up due to crappy management policies (pay the government workers cheap, lack of responsibility, etc)...

...so to step in and think that THIS is the one thing they can do right when the track record shows differently is entirely assinine.

the uk is more socialist-like than the US...so...it works there

Uzique wrote:

you just linked me an article where every single medical professional was paid six-figures - £140,000. isn't that like a quarter of a million in dollars? then you say that government "pays the workers cheap". as for lack of responsibility: how can a system possibly have less sense of medical responsibility than one where the ultimate driving force is 'save as much money as possible - maximise profits'? doctors in the uk here are rewarded if they manage to help their patients cut out smoking, improve their blood pressure, come in for regular check-ups, etc. they actually get paid more annually as a performance-incentive for running a better practice. and by 'better' i mean 'in the interests of the people using it', not 'better' as in 'saves the parent company loads of money'. even when this stuff is staring you in the face you just mumble some dumb stuff about big government and carry on sleeping on the fact 50,000 people a year in america die because they can't afford healthcare. that's disgraceful. world's most advanced nation my arse.

Again you missed the point.  The US GOV'T has to change its mindset to do this properly.  You guys already got it figured out so it's no big deal.

Unfortunately some a-hole is going to sue the government based on their constitutional right to smoke, eat twinkies, and rot on the sofa watching Mythbusters.  If you can figure that one out...




lol $250k?  That's crap doctor salary, even in my small market town.  Most clients I have as doctors make between $375-425k.  I have one client who's a heart surgeon who works 8 months per year, makes about $525k.

Protip...you missed the point again.

Ahh, so I'm going to have to solve class inequities now?

Great.  Love where this is heading.

I'm assuming medicare etc, has been mentioned to you already no?

Medicare, etc, you know that awesome program designed to help the poor get healthcare.

Let's give the management up to the government for the entire nation...after all, the government has proven it can manage medicare...

Dude, my point is the government can't run shit and has proven it.  You guys are set up differently...and therefore it's not comparable beyond theory and rhetoric

My belief (mentioned a while back) is that the government should step in to broker a treaty between the patients, the industry, and the insurance folks.

Not manage the system.

You're a pretty opinioned about the US kind of dude.  I shouldn't have to tell you the US government manages shit poorly.

Uzique wrote:

i don't care about class inequality. that a nation has a working, middle and sometimes upper class doesn't bother me. scandinavian countries have working class and middle class people too, you know. they're not all communists living on an equal plane. just the wealth gap is much smaller (i still don't care about this) and everyone has basic, universal care. i'm arguing in support of a right to a humanist principle that every citizen in a so-called 'advanced' western society should have, not the (financially) privileged. i don't care about class. i don't care about wealth, really, either. i just think it's a travesty when an advanced country can't even promise healthcare to all of its people. it's a serious hang-up.

Does everyone have a right to food too? What about shelter? Why work at all when all of your basic needs can be covered by others? Even luxuries like medical care!

We're American, the only basic human rights we believe people have is a right to live under a non-oppressive government. It's what this country was founded on and largely what it has remained. Americans do not trust their government to effectively fix potholes, why would you expect them to trust the government to run an effective medical system? This is the point that Pug was making, and which you have ignored for five replies now.

Edit - Ken alluded to it too a few pages back.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-21 14:13:14)