IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New wow, no death panels needed under obama care
just cut the reimbursement rate so low they die before getting seen.
http://www.washingto...010112503638.html
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Looks pretty bad
until you actually read for comprehension.



The lobbying blitz by doctors also comes amid concern in Washington that Medicare spending is spiraling up so fast the nation can't afford to boost it further by significantly raising doctors' pay. And government analysts and independent experts suggest that although doctors could not absorb a 25 percent fee cut, the claim that they have been inadequately compensated by Medicare until now is wildly exaggerated.

Among the top points of contention is the complaint by doctors that Medicare's payment rate has not kept pace with the growing cost of running a medical practice. As measured by the government's Medicare Economic Index, those expenses rose 18 percent from 2000 to 2008. During the same period, Medicare's physician fees rose 5 percent.


...


Whatever the cause, the explosion in the volume of services provided helps explain why Medicare's total payments to doctors per patient rose 51 percent from 2000 to 2008.

A review of physicians' incomes suggests that specialists - who have more opportunities to increase the volume of the services they offer than primary-care doctors - reaped most of the benefit.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.


Just like airline pilots. Limited quantity (self enforced, yeah, like 30 hour intern slave shifts do anything other than cut the people who realise it's stupid), highly trained highly skilled individuals, but in this case they also have a lot more business acumen and attitude. And make a lot more money, both directly and as part of their total business environment.

No. Simple as that. $100K in debt for your education? For a career which you can reasonably expect $150K a year after a couple of years in the real world? At the LOW end?

Hmm. 2/3 of your yearly wage.

Hmm, let's look at what might be a reasonable education debt for the rest of us. How about $5-$10K per year? And between 3-6 years of education. Which ranges between $15K-$60K. Let's say I up with a $40K debt load out of a 4 year degree. How many careers out there will give me $100K-$300K (reasonable range)? Very few. And I'd add 4 year of experience as pert of the non-doctor salary to make up for the extra training time, but it still does not come close.

Ok, assume I'm a LUCKY guy who makes $60K after 4 years out of school. I'm not in the "you want fries with that" liberal arts crowd. And I'll be incredibly lucky if I continue a career path that doesn't top out at $100K.

So for the next 20 years, I make an average of $70K (wild ass number drops obviously), which gives me a $1.4MM total (ignoring the many issues concerning of when someone receives money and how it might be invested over a lifetime).

A doctor over 20 years making an average of $180K per year? Hmmm. $3.6MM. How much more did he spend in the education? Not a lot. And how much more does he get over the cost of living that we ALL have to pay for? Once you cross that, your lifestyle skyrockets as compared to the rest of us. As well as savings and a comfy old age.

The bottom line is there are a subset of docs in it for the money, and I say either they are so good that they will get it, or they aren't worth it and don't really care, so they should drop out of medicine.

The rest of them can learn to live on single person income of $150K (which can range up to $300K) (after a few years in the work place). If that's not enough, then the spouse (hey, it could be a guy) can take in washing to supplement the income.

Hehehe.

New Yeah. They've got us in a corner.
Gotta do what the physicians want or they'll throw grandma in the dumpster.

Not.

Physicians have a lot of laws protecting their incomes. E.g. Barriers for foreign physicians practicing in the USA - http://www.cepr.net/...al_supplement.htm

More from Dean Baker - http://www.cepr.net/...omists-dont-care/

[...]

This [WSJ] article is remarkable because it does not include any quotes from economists about the enormous cost that the economy is being forced to bear as a result of the extreme protectionism used to maintain doctors' salaries. It would not be difficult to design residency programs in other countries that met U.S. standards. (Even a doctor should be smart enough to do that.) We can also include a subsidy to the countries of origin of foreign-trained physicians to ensure that they can train more than enough doctors to make up for those that come to practice in the United States.

This could hugely increase the supply of doctors in the United States. This would lower the wages of physicans and reduce the cost of health care. This article should have been reported as an example of protectionism by a powerful special interest group being carried to absurd levels (e.g. Buy American policies times 1000), but instead the issue was never even raised.


http://www.cepr.net/...-in-large-numbers

What Would Happen if Physicians Left Medicare in Large Numbers?

Monday, 01 November 2010 05:07

The answer is that they would get significant cuts in revenue. The Washington Post, which is known for its problems with logic and economics, never made this point as it discussed the possibility of a mass exodus of physicians from the Medicare program. The Post uncritically presented complaints about Medicare's compensation schedule from Cecil B. Wilson, the president of the American Medical Association that Medicare does not pay them enough money. (The article was headlined: "Physicians Face Painful Decision on Medicare.")

While it is possible that any individual physician can make more money by taking patients from private insurers rather than Medicare patients, physicians in aggregate could only make up for the revenue lost by not seeing Medicare patients if there was a large pool of individuals with money or high-paying insurers who do not currently have access to doctors. Of course, people with money in the United States are already seeing doctors, so if physicians en masse turned away from Medicare then they would simply have fewer patients. (This may be the painful decision referred to in the headline.)


Lots of nurses aides around here are from Ghana...

Unlike what the WSJ and the WP would have us believe, there are many choices available to the country on how to handle rising medical expenses. Cutting the number of people in the system is not the only choice (and it's not clear that that would happen anyway). I'm not saying that there won't be painful adjustments, but US physicians are not somehow smarter than vets and vets make a lot less... There's no compelling evidence that we're getting better outcomes as a society in paying our physicians far more than the rest of the world...

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New thanks for the clarity
so we reduce doctors incomes to 80k a year and tell them to fuck off if they dont like it. That will improve care
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New What's your solution?
New posted it many times, look it up
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Raising the cap won't reduce the inflation.
New Whoa
You said $80K. I said let them range between $150K and $300K.

And you chose to make up a number and respond to Another, but not mine.

Not nice.

Not logical.
New And actually, that's pretty much how it works up here
though the numbers are a bit different, of course, not being the same currency and all that.

When Canada passed the health act, the doctors were all up in arms about the restrictions on their incomes. As it turned out, they're still very well paid. If you guys want to fix the problems with your health care costs, you're going to have to stick it to them to at least some extent, along with the equipment and drug manufacturers. This will not mean the end of the world; it certainly didn't in the rest of the world, and I can't think of any reason why the US would be any different.
New Mike's Economic Law
expressed here for the first time:

If the cost of A is out of control, money is going to some group B. Any effective control on the cost of A reduces at least the potential income of B.

There is no effective solution Y that can reduce the cost of A without a reasonable objection from B.

However, I suspect that in this case B is the insurance, um, I believe the current PC term is "industry", although I'm pretty sure "scam" better reflects the value-add, more than doctors. I'm pretty sure that he eventual solution to the health care crisis will cause the insurance companies considerable pain. Marie Antoinette's neck type pain. (Mike's Political Law: there are ALWAYS checks and balances. Systems that plan for them have prettier outcomes. Ms. Antoinette discovered that the French Aristocracy was subject to a system of checks and balances - a formal system might have been more to her liking.)
---------------------------------------
I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.
(Tori Amos)
New If you guys want to get that under control
they will need to be crushed. It's that simple.
New See my other response to Mike.
New Four things need to change...
1) Soft-tissue damages need to be capped. Since "National Health Care" will do the long term care... that rules out that cost.

2) Device manufacturers need to be hurt horribly. Most "machines" used in each room... like the multi-function (all in one heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, oxygen levels, ekg...etc) devices, many cost less than $500 for the manufacturer to deliver it including delivery costs. Yet many of those devices cost upwards of $30,000. Many service contracts are ~ 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of the device new. Refurbed devices cost even less to round trip and are provided to replaced failed/problematic machines. Considering some really large hospitals have thousands of these devices... the cost is considerable.

3) Pharma... lets just say that recently they have made all "cures" 3-5 times more expensive... because they can. Also upping the costs of regimens by a lot. As well as "standard" long term medications... claiming "increasing costs to produce". Many of these reasons are pure and utter bullshit.

4) Health Insurance "Industry" needs to be turned into a break even kind of thing without the stupid loopholes. Forcing it to be health care not sick care and make it the primary reason to exist is to keep people healthy not reduce costs.

Then and ONLY then will our healthcare system be fixed.
New Your mistake is reasonable
The word that is. Most objections in this case are actually unreasonable, based on the unspoken assumption that because people have made a living doing something in the past they have a right to continue doing so.

Just as technology change can make industries and businesses obsolete, so can legal changes.

Jay
     wow, no death panels needed under obama care - (boxley) - (13)
         Looks pretty bad - (crazy)
         Yeah. They've got us in a corner. - (Another Scott) - (11)
             thanks for the clarity - (boxley) - (10)
                 What's your solution? -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     posted it many times, look it up -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Raising the cap won't reduce the inflation. -NT - (Another Scott)
                 Whoa - (crazy) - (1)
                     And actually, that's pretty much how it works up here - (jake123)
                 Mike's Economic Law - (mhuber) - (4)
                     If you guys want to get that under control - (jake123) - (1)
                         See my other response to Mike. -NT - (folkert)
                     Four things need to change... - (folkert)
                     Your mistake is reasonable - (jay)

Nine for Mortal Chellovecks doomed to snuff it.
94 ms