<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. That’s not racist. And I wouldn’t be surprised if you pulled that stat right out of your a$$.</p>
<p>OP, if you want $$$, go to Wharton and become an i-banker…oh wait…</p>
<p>^haha aw snap…</p>
<p>Im considering IBanking for exit oppertunities. Considering LSM for MBA/MD oppertunity.</p>
<p>Look it up, news report Asians have the LEAST preference towards Universal Health care. While the poorer minorities have high 60% ish preference. Please do not debate that Asians are poor. They have the highest average salary out of ALL ethnicities, including Caucasian.</p>
<p>lets consider the pay. Countries will Universal health care have Horrible pay.
Canada: 116k Primary Care, even LESS if you specialize to Neurologist lol…
[PayScale</a> Canada - People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors Salary, Average Salaries](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_/_Doctors/Salary]PayScale”>People with Jobs as Physicians / Doctors Salary | PayScale)</p>
<p>Japanese doctors worked for 6$ an hour. A japanese woman lost a baby in her womb because the 11 hospitals she visited went on strike due to horrible physician pay. Japan has universal Health Care.</p>
<p>Germany is the wost, leading to a physician brain drain. I guess my point is, the pay in some cases is HALF or less of what American Physicians are.</p>
<p>that doesn’t mean American doctors are gonna start making minimum wage. </p>
<p>and many americans think it would be a good thing for doctors who make 6-figures telling someone puking their guts out that they seem to have a gastrointestinal problem ought have their salaries decreased a bit.</p>
<p>Even if your statistics are correct, that doesn’t make your reasoning any less incredibly racist. I daresay that your reasoning makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. It’s almost laughable how bad it is. I know plenty of Asians who are not physicians.</p>
<p>I wonder what the cost of medical education in the countries you listed is.</p>
<p>And let me get this straight, you’re considering going to an MD/MBA program, and then going into i-banking?</p>
<p>That was a racist comment. 1. Not all asians are doctors. 2. correlation does not mean causation. I’m sure there are many more variables that play into a way a race forms opinions.</p>
<p>I have a question… are you related to Ann Coulter by any chance?</p>
<p>
Whoa now. So now you’re saying that the internist that makes 100k a year is barely a doctor? So to you, it’s not the fact that the internist went to medical school and did a residency that makes him a doctor (never mind the way he treats his patients, God forbid treating your patients well helps make you a good doctor), but his salary? That may be one of the dumbest and shallowest things I’ve read on CC. Ever.</p>
<p>To quote a physician I shadowed:
“There are easier ways to make money.”</p>
<p>Maybe you should explore one of those, OP. Since that’s all you seem to care about.</p>
<p>^^^ Not really i guess. IBanking bags 500k a year but in return u get 100 hour weeks if you do not make MD or at a 2&20 firm. Name 1 better way to make money. For Hours : Pay ratio, doctors may be well up there. Business is the only other option. lawyer is just paper work and more paper work.
There are High Tiered Medical schools ( Harvard Hopkins Penn) and there are low tiered med schools. Those from low tiered med schools are barely barely doctors.</p>
<p>No i didnt claim Doctors will make minimal wage, i am claiming that their pay will be cut drastically.
Keep in mind that 0.33% of the american population are doctors, Asians probably claim a 3-5% rate in medicine. 1000-1500% the national average.
Do you guys know how many physicians are Asian??? They OVER OVER OVER OVER OVER represent them selves in Medicine.
I can almost gaurentee you guys that every asian knows a friend or a relative who is a physician. I am asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you said, I was just citing businessweek. I do not know how much in that article is based on facts, and how much is just the author’s “opinion.” I found the journalists who wrote on these magazines often like to exaggerate things out of proportion, or speculate too much but include too little confirmed fact, e.g. what you just wrote was not mentioned in this article : “Obama received boos at the AMA conference when he specifically said that this was not going to happen.”</p>
<p>As of today, I consider myself not informed enough on such a complicated issue to make any comment on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of my white friends have a friend or relative who is a physician. I actually think I know more white physicians than Asian physicians.</p>
<p>I’m going to save your high tiered and low tiered comment for someone else to bash you about. However, I will say you have no idea what you are talking about.</p>
<p>Not being at all informed on this topic, can somebody explain how doctors’ salaries in other countries with universal care compare to the US and relative to other professions in those countries?</p>
<p>In response to the OP:
You apparently no nothing of public support for current proposals. And where did you get your asians don’t support a public option statistic? I was unable to locate such data.</p>
<p>Asians account for 4.4% of the US population according to 2006 US Census Bureau statistics, and 5.7% of US physicians according to 2006 AAMC data (note: this data represented the ethnic breakdown of US physicians as of 2004, not 2006). So you are correct in saying Asians are over-represented in medicine, but you seem to exaggerate reality. In any event, ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with using the Asian population as a gauge of how “popular” health care reform proposals are, and you seem to imply that Asians are somehow better than other races which is concerning…</p>
<p>Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. This is a marked increase from the 2002 survey that found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it. In other words, most physicians favor the current public option proposal.</p>
<p>As for the general public: According to a recent Rasmussen poll 65% of Americans believe that every American should have access to quality health care.</p>
<p>The most recent NYT/CBS News poll showed that 72% of Americans favored a public option.</p>
<p>Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization whose poll was funded by AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin. So accusing them of bias would seem dubious…</p>
<p>Details of this poll:
Question asked: Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following:</p>
<pre><code>Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase:
• Strongly support—53 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—5 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent
Having national rules requiring insurance companies to cover all people, regardless of their health problems:
• Strongly support—55 percent
• Somewhat support—25 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent
Expanding government programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid:
• Strongly support—45 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent
Requiring all employers to pay toward subsidized health insurance for employees:
• Strongly support—42 percent
• Somewhat support—33 percent
• Somewhat oppose—10 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent
Requiring everyone to participate in some kind of health insurance plan:
• Strongly support—38 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—13 percent
• Strongly oppose—16 percent
</code></pre>
<p>As for your so called “barely doctors”: Graduates of all accredited US medical school are VERY well trained, as all medical school must meet extremely stringent requirements to be accredited. Additionally, all US graduates must undergo the same licensing and board certification process and they all compete for the same residencies. Someone who chose their state medical school to cut down on costs and scored highly on their exams is likely more knowledgeable than someone coming from a more “prestigious” school who barely passed. There are doctors at the top of their respective fields from schools of a myriad of different levels of prestige. Going to a top medical school does not in and of itself make you any better of a doctor. It simply indicates you performed at your undergraduate institution in a way that was attractive to that particular medical school when you were compared with their other applicants for that particular year, and that you then chose to attend that school over other options that may have been cheaper.</p>
<p>And to clarify for you, pay under a public option has not been specified, so any speculation is merely that, speculation. You seem to take joy in comparing current proposals to various other countries under a single-payer system, and yet you fail to actually make any real comparisons. Unless the US sets up our system EXACTLY like those systems we will not be the same rates of physician pay(Note: the US has not proposed a single-payer system nor have we reduced medical school costs to the levels of other countries. These two differences in and of themselves indicate that pay under the US system will likely be markedly higher than pay in the country you chose for comparison.) There are several current proposals to address physician pay from reducing medical school costs for those who enter into primary care, to increasing medicare and medicaid payouts, to implementing salaried pay scales where doctors get paid for quality rather than quantity of care, among other ideas. In short, there is no current detailed plan on physician pay under what would be a new system, but to assume the AMA will sit idly by while physician pay is cut 30% is to ignore their years of lobbying that have resulted in the inability of congress to reduce medicare and medicaid rates. I personally have little respect for the AMA, but I am confident they will perpetually be the guardians of physician pay. So, your claims seem to be completely pulled out of thin air by making fallacious comparisons, failing to understand current proposals, and ignoring the vastly developed physician lobby that exists in this country. Basically, your ignorance has spawned ignorant comments; what a surprise… </p>
<p>And most I-Bankers don’t make 500K buddy: The average i-banking salary (for associates/not for analysts who just got hired) is 100K with an average yearly bonus of 148K meaning the average yearly pay is about 248K as reported by payscale.com. I-bankers who make 500K are the top of the top and have managed to climb the ranks and typically have been in the industry for more than 6 years(average salaries for i-bankers don’t reach 500K until you make VP, and many don’t ever make VP). Starting salaries are often in the 40-70K range and i-banking analysts(which is where you start). Average work week is 70hrs., which is higher than many physicians(although not higher than residency), especially those in what are termed “lifestyle” specialties.</p>
<p>If you are looking only for money medicine will not make you happy. Of course, money likely won’t make you happy either. Let me explain you apparent misperception: There is an ironic reality that some call the Hedonic Treadmill. The greatest myth of human life is the belief that I’ll be happy if I just get what I want. All the research shows that as soon as we get what we want, we’ll just want something else — but we seem doomed to keep forgetting this. This is another evolutionary gotcha; our brains trick us into doing what’s good for species survival by making us believe it will make us happy. The things we crave — money, power, success, beauty — in the old days would have put us in a better position to pass on our genes; in fact, they still do a little. They don’t make us any happier, but we have real trouble learning that, because our genetic heritage, expressed in the unconscious, is so powerful. How do you manage to stay happy with a brain like this?</p>
<p>Staying happy is also more of a problem these days because our society has broken up our most of our means of security — meaningful work, close-knit families, a supportive community, a sense of religious belonging. It’s replaced them with more of the same fruitless values we just discussed (money, power, etc.) but at the same time made those things harder to reach. Despite the growth in overall wealth, most Americans today are working 25 percent more hours than they were 25 years ago simply to stay in place economically. Hard to be happy if you’re only treading water with no land in sight, hence the term hedonic treadmill.</p>
<p>On a final note: You severely lack the empathy and compassion that any good doctor needs, and I assume most admissions committees and interviewers would smell you from a mile away, so you may not even be able to get into medical school unless you convincingly present yourself dishonestly. You should look for another field to pursue, and I seriously hope you can find a field that will truly fulfill you as a person and not just your delusional desire for wealth. Life is about much more than paper.</p>
<p>“Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it”</p>
<p>does not equal…</p>
<p>" In other words, most physicians favor the current public option proposal."</p>
<p>I think there should be a poll that asks </p>
<p>" I will have less ( i.e. access, choices) , so that others can have more"</p>
<p>As a physican, it’s not so much a problem when you just shift the resources from those who get more, to those who get less, especially if everybody gets “enough”. The problem arises when everybody wants more, and nobody gets enough, and it’s the doctors “fault”. Thta was the “gatekeeper” plan.</p>
<p>The survey was a random sample of physicians, meaning that it selected physicians in a way as to give doctors of different fields and opinions on health care reform an equal chance of being selected. n=2000, which is far above the n=30 standard required to satisfy the central limit theorem, meaning that the poll results represent statistically sound estimates of the true population parameter. (The population parameter is ALL physicians in case you don’t know) Given the standard required for most polls I expect this poll has a margin of error of no greater than 3%. In fact, with a sample size of 2000 it is likely lower than that, although I would need the population standard deviation to calculate it exactly. In other words, the survey of 2000 physicians is a valid statical representation of the true opinion of ALL physicians.</p>
<p>Do you have a specific complaint about the sampling procedure or do you just not understand statistics?</p>
<p>Edit: I apologize for my effrontery tone if that is how it comes across to you. I am frustrated with the level of ignorance that I’ve surrounded myself with today, but I do not mean to come across as rude if you were indeed simply stating what you believed to be my improper interpretation. If you have further questions, I will try my best to explain why a survey of 2000 physicians is more than sufficient to make the claim that most physicians support a public health care option.</p>
<p>"Do you have a specific complaint about the sampling procedure or do you just not understand statistics? "</p>
<p>Ouch…only two choices? Is that statistically sound, or just mean spirited? Guess I will go with don’t understand statistics. I’m just a physician, after all. Last time I looked at A survey quoting an n=2000 with that result,( maybe not the SAME survey), I thought there was a bias in terms of who they asked, and who responded. (Nobody asked me! ) Is that not among my choices? Maybe the “smart” ones study statistics and not medicine. I WILL go back and look at the study ( link please). I DO like to think I’m open to learning.</p>
<p>"If you have further questions, I will try my best to explain why a survey of 2000 physicians is more than sufficient to make the claim that most physicians support a public health care option.'</p>
<p>Yes, please!</p>
<p>Here’s a thread on a doctors forum. Of 'course you are SUPPOSED to be a doctor to log on, but there are always “posers”. I believe the 2000k doctor survey is mentioned in there somewhere, but I’m still looking…</p>
<p><a href=“Medscape: Medscape Access”>Medscape: Medscape Access;
<p>Original article, description of “study”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf</a></p>
<p>Here’s the survey I was thinking of</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.healthpopuli.com/2008/04/most-doctors-want-national-health-plan.html[/url]”>http://www.healthpopuli.com/2008/04/most-doctors-want-national-health-plan.html</a></p>
<p>And my post on medscape in response</p>
<p><a href=“Medscape: Medscape Access”>Medscape: Medscape Access;
<p>Sample seems to begin with the AMA, which I believe represents about 25 percent of physicians. ( Too expensive for me!).</p>
<p>All surveys have the potential to have under coverage and response bias. This is why we have margins of error. Unless there is a major flaw in the sampling procedure the margin of error accounts for all other variation due to confounding variables.</p>
<p>My original numbers came from a news report, but here is the original study report: <a href=“http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf</a></p>
<p>Guess we cross posted. I acknowledge statistics is not my strong suit. I’m in the trenches, not doing research. But I did learn enough in journal club to be skeptical of the research. I know the response from many physicians, undoubtedly smarter than I ( me?) , was skeptical of this group, and their survey. What does the sample that they chose to survey mean to you? What does it mean to you that most physicians aren’t in the AMA? </p>
<p>Anyway, just so you know, I am not fighting this reality, I am only afraid, due to my experience in a similar evolution, about what it means for mental health. I could make WAY more money if I would just assimilate.</p>
<p>Peace out.</p>