<p>non-profits are not “non-profits”. They simply refused to go public with stocks and bonds.</p>
<p>Consider the college board. “non-profit” right? They how come they claim that their AP program is the most lucrative program they have?? Do you honestly think the people that run the ETS and college board do it for free? No, they get a handsome paycheck.</p>
<p>Money makes the world go around. People that claim otherwise simply have money. Try talking to a hobo or a 30000$ a year family.</p>
<p>CC’er is probably the most uninformed person i have ever encountered on the internet. i’m not at all surprised that he speaks with such certitude…people like him usually do.</p>
<p>Ill put my money where my mouth is; If the bill passes, physicians will see a cut in income. 20% of the physician work force will quit: see previous posts for source.</p>
<p>I have noticed you have a tendency to ignore most of the arguments against you in favor of picking out one piece of a post and attacking it with further ignorance… Do you really think we can’t see through this?</p>
<p>A non-profit is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. In other words, they are not out to make people wealthy off their profits, but to further some purpose…</p>
<p>Money does not make the world go around, that would be people. Social workers, people like Mother Teressa, teachers of disadvantaged youth, etc prove that many choose their life’s profession based on factors other than money. If you think money alone will make you happy you will likely grow to be a very sad person. Your seeming inability to even comprehend the value of people and passion over pieces of paper makes me wonder whether you are mentally sound. Hopefully, you are just really foolish.</p>
<p>And your statement that poor people are less happy is simply not supported by reality. A 2006 study by Princeton Economist Alan B. Krueger and Princeton psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman found the following:</p>
<p>“The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory. People with above-average income are relatively satisfied with their lives but are barely happier than others in moment-to-moment experience, tend to be more tense, and do not spend more time in particularly enjoyable activities.”</p>
<p>“Despite the weak relationship between income and global life satisfaction or experienced happiness, many people are highly motivated to increase their income,” the study said. “In some cases, this focusing illusion may lead to a misallocation of time, from accepting lengthy commutes (which are among the worst moments of the day) to sacrificing time spent socializing (which are among the best moments of the day).”</p>
<p>“If people have high income, they think they should be satisfied and reflect that in their answers,” says Krueger. “Income, however, matters very little for moment-to-moment experience.” </p>
<p>According to the government statistics, men making more than $100,000 per year spend 19.9 percent of their time on passive leisure, compared to 34.7 percent for men making less than $20,000. Women making more than $100,000 spend 19.6 percent of their time on passive leisure, compared with 33.5 percent of those making less than $20,000.</p>
<p>Quite a few studies now show that it is detrimental to happiness to think that money is more important than other values. It seems that this kind of materialism can detract from social relationships, which are very important to happiness. And because income is an open-ended goal, one’s aspirations for money can rise forever — thus it might be more difficult than other goals to achieve unless one puts a cap on desires. (i.e. the Hedonic Treadmill that I already explained to you)</p>
<p>Please grow up and go educate yourself! It might also help you to work with lower income families and disadvantaged youth; at least it would hopefully remove some of your immense lack of knowledge about the realities of life.</p>
<p>Edit:
</p>
<p>Pure speculation… Until definitive and specific policies are proposed such assumptions are meaningless. This has already been explained…</p>
<p>
Again, this just doesn’t even make sense. “Putting your money where your mouth is” means actually involving yourself in some kind of financial stake. Just reasserting your previous statement is not “putting your money where your mouth is,” it’s just further running your mouth.</p>
<p>I don’t even know what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re completely incorrect. Med school is actually one of the most “leveled” / least tiered grad schools (unlike law). Unless you think that Blue Cross Blue Shield or Aetna pay more to the Harvard doc than the state flagship doc? What a doc in private practice makes is based on how well he runs his business and what plans he accepts, not the school he went to.</p>
<p>I don’t want to hear the blah blah “don’t do it for the money” speech, because that isn’t what i’m getting at. But seriously, why on earth does anyone become doctors in Germany or Canada where they get paid so little? Everyone likes to help people (I’d hope) and i’m sure it’s rewarding, ect., but regardless, the pay is so ridiculously low.</p>
<p>
Gotta love this logic.</p>
<p>For Inpursuit:</p>
<p>The poor people spend more time on leisure activities because they are lazy. I dont care about how politically incorrect this is. </p>
<p>Again, I agree with rileyjohn, I dont want the “dont do it for the money” BS. EVERYONE IS DOING IT FOR THE MONEY.</p>
<p>If you were paid 6$ an hour (fairly close to German and japanese doctor pay once you factor in Malpractice and 33%, for Japanese, income Tax), would you work for 60-70 hours a week as a doctor? Common sense would dictate otherwise.</p>
<p>Again, Countries with universal Health care has significantly lower physician pay.
Id suggest you guys take a look at this graph:[German</a> Brain Drain: Sick of Bad Pay, Doctors Flee Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International](<a href=“http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,grossbild-575805-399537,00.html]German”>http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,grossbild-575805-399537,00.html)
Average Hospital Physician Salary
267k for US (non-universal Health care)
Universal Health Care:
203k Australia
175k Netherlands
127k BRITAIN
116k France
81k Italy
73k Denmark
56k GERMANY</p>
<p>These countries have a serious history of welfare state. Trends do not lie, it is HIGHLY likely that physician pay will be cut, regardless of detailed policies, due to past trends. The triteness of learning from history will confirmed trend.</p>
<p>
Those residents who are $200K in debt and making mad bank of $40K a year are DEFINITELY in it for the money. Yep. You know what’s up.
I don’t think money is as big of an issue in other countries because a medical education doesn’t cost nearly as much, and I’m not sure about this, but I think they don’t work as many hours either (don’t quote me on this though).</p>
<p>
Oh please. </p>
<p>CCer, you’ve already lost this one. Can you just leave? And run far, far away from medicine? You’re just wrong, on pretty much every statement you’ve made on this thread and this forum.</p>
<p>I wonder if CCer is a ■■■■■…</p>
<p>CC’er: Funny how (despite lower pay) all of the nations you listed have at least as many (and almost always more) physicians per 1000 people than the US. In fact, Italy has the third highest number of practicing physicians per 1000 people(3.8) and Germany has one additional doctor for every 1000 citizens(3.4) than the US(2.4). <a href=“http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/12/38976551.pdf[/url]”>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/12/38976551.pdf</a></p>
<p>This would seem to debunk your claim that everyone goes into medicine for the money or that lower pay has to result in a shortage of doctors.</p>
<p>You also seem to ignore the great disparity in physician income among countries with universal health care. This would seem to show that the type of health care system plays less of a role in physician income than you seem to think, or at the very least that there are many other variables that affect income that you are not even considering. In any event, you are making fallacious comparisons that in no way indicate anything about the US, since the US is NOT those countries and is not proposing a system identical (or even hugely similar) to the systems of those countries.</p>
<p>You lack the ability to interpret statistics, make logical connections, and/or recognize critical differences that affect the proper interpretation of data. I have explained many of your delusions numerous times, and you still fail to recognize your own ignorance. I am beginning to wonder whether stupid is more fitting term than ignorant when referring to you…</p>
<p>Countries with universal health care also have better outcomes for health, which is ultimately what medicine is about. Of course, there are many reasons for this, but you seem to think it is acceptable to not cover people and just let them die or suffer unnecessary and easily preventable illness so some people can make a few extra bucks(assuming many doctors would even lose money by covering more people, which is yet to be shown and cannot be shown until more details about reform are known. It is likely that the type of doctors we have a shortage of would make more, which is actually a free-market concept that you seem to ignore…) And not all poor people are lazy. There are people who work hard(sometimes multiple jobs) and still cannot afford health insurance, and there are others who are more than willing to work hard and cannot find a job. For someone who has never been poor or experienced living without health insurance you sure do seem quick to make uneducated generalizations…</p>
<p>IP: Part of what you’re seeing is the OP’s failure to adjust for local purchasing power parity.</p>
<p>How would this affect specialist’s salaries (ie cardiologists/dermatogists) and non-primary care doctors?</p>
<p>When Bill Clinton proposed his universal health care plan, the AMA spent massive amounts of money(lobbying and advertising) and eventually got the bill defeated…I wonder why this isn’t happening know?</p>
<p>Because, even the AMA realizes that change needs to happen…</p>
<p>I think IP is wrong on this one. I think the AMA hasn’t opposed anything yet simply because Obama hasn’t yet actually said anything. When the details come out, we’ll see how the opposition focuses.</p>
<p>Is the U.S. system headed in the way the British heath care system? If that were the case, I wouldn’t want this change, the British health care system is a perfect example of a failed health care system. The people in england claim how awful the care is, and there are many people from nations such as UK, Canda(these are all counties with universal health care) that come to the U.S. in search of BETTER quality health care. (I am probably wrong, and misinformed, because I am just a high school senior, correct me if I am wrong)</p>
<p>Thank god the AMA is a strong lobbyist group…</p>
<p>In the UK and Canada, there is a heavy, federally mandated emphasis on general practitioners and primary care (in UK, about 2/3 of docs are GPs). Access to specialists is only granted by referral from a GP. In the UK, specialists work for the NHS and since the number of slots for specialists (including surgeons) is tightly regulated by the government resulting in a rationing of care.
The problem with these systems is that as a result, there are excessively long wait times for non-emergency procedures. The rate of coronary bypass surgery in the UK is about 1/5 that of the US.</p>
<p>In the US, where no such limits exist, it is a lot easier to see a specialist or surgeon for a specific non-urgent problem.</p>
<p>I know the UK does have private health plans that allow more freedom and flexibility, but I’m not sure how many citizens have private as opposed to public health plans.</p>