<p>Oh, Inpursuit, I’d like to point out that most of the 24% that would quit are general physicians (Family physician and internalists). The 20% specialists lost would be far more devasting than the 24% family physicians/ internalist that would be lost. Why? the general physician spots are easier to fill. Internationals would eagerly fill them because the selective specialization programs are not likely to take a Foreign MD.</p>
<p>and the 24% you mentioned, only 11% would retire. 13% will “seek a job in a nonclinical healthcare setting.”
so only 11% will retire. The other 13% will still be in healthcare, still physicians. They will presumably go into a higher paying physician job/specialty. Contrasting with the 20% specialists who are DEFINITELY getting out of medicine if UHC passes.</p>
<p>This raises another red flag; if physicians are so “in it for love,” why quit at signs of economic hardship? shouldnt they stick it out and treat poor people because they “love helping people?”</p>
<p>No, doctors are in it for money. Both sides are wanting change for economic reasons; the generals want a raise in salary while the specialists do not want a decrease in salary. If the general practitioners “love helping people,” why in the world would 11% quit if their salaries do not increase?</p>
<p>my arguement rests on one thing; SELF INTEREST and (an offshoot) laissez faire. You guys really should take a few econ classes.</p>
<p>Speaking as somebody who is currently taking out those loans, I promise you that they are, indeed, going for about 7%. And financial aid (grants) is basically non-existent at the medical school level except in rare situations. And not everybody’s parents have $160K sitting around.</p>
<p>Besides, that’s not the point. The point is that you are spending money on this when you could be investing it, and so you are losing the interest you could have saved on that money. (Or you are paying loan interest on paid tuition instead of on investments.)</p>
<p>This is really basic, obvious economics. Seriously.</p>
<p>you dont seem to understand what “healthcare setting” means.
Pharmacists, Psychiatry, psychology are examples of nonclinical healthcare settings that MD’s are capable of doing. These jobs are by no means paid less than the general physician; they are around the same. The pharmacist may be paid higher than the general physician although i dont have the numbers infront of me.</p>
<p>Education is an investment. You need money to make money.</p>
The only job you listed that MD’s actually do is psychiatry. Pharmacists go to Pharmacy School to get a Pharm. D and Psychologists go to graduate school to get either a Ph.D or Psy.D. Why don’t you do research on what a doctor actually does before you do research on their salaries?</p>
BDM is right, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between “clinical” and “nonclinical”. First of all, pharmacy and psychology are both fields that are generally clinical in nature (for instance, clinical pharmacist and clinical psychology). Nonclinical means that they do not interact with patients. A nonclinical healthcare setting might include research (laboratories, etc) excluding clinical research; it might include consulting or administrative positions in a healthcare company, or in a hospital.
Secondly, “psychiatry” is a medical specialty. You need an MD to practice psychiatry (for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, you don’t seem to know a lot about the topic you’re debating). The same rules apply to psychiatry; nonclinical healthcare positions might include basic research and administrative positions.</p>
<p>edit: phonyreal got to it first and is correct</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “MDs are capable of doing.” Do you mean that people who become doctors are capable of being psychologists or pharmacists? Yes, probably. But if you mean that someone with an MD can get a job as a pharmacist or a psychologist, then you are wrong. The MD is a professional degree that gives someone the right to practice medicine. Psychology and pharmacy have their own degrees, education, and training.</p>
<p>
And while pharmacy does pay well (psych is probably more variable), I seriously doubt the compensation of these fields versus medicine is readily comparable.</p>
<p>Ok my bad, So you need a year or two more to do pharmacy and psychiatry.</p>
<p>Pop in nonclinical health care jobs and you’d find that Pharmacists, psychiatrist, and Psychologists are nonclinical health care specialities. My guess is that they can easily be converted from general physicians given a year or two. Internalists have a good knowledge of drugs.</p>
<p>there we go. Fine, my mistake. So the 13% that would go into nonclinical would become medical directors, medical writters, medical Entrepreneurs, and medical officials/ executives instead. They are still going for better pay.</p>
<p>wait… you’re telling bluedevilmike to take an econ class? Didn’t he major in economics? Arn’t most of these guys already IN medical school? Did you even apply to ANY medical schools? I bet you didn’t, yet you’re claiming how easy it is to get in and how much you know about the field.</p>
<p>Dude, just stop now. You’re getting mentally raped here. Even the greatest fighters know when they’re done for. But you’re not even considered a worthy opponent in terms of debating, so be smart and run while you can. You don’t know the difference between psychology and psychiatry yet you are debating about ALL health-related careers in the world and the motivations people have for choosing them? You just can’t win man. Your view of the world is so foolishly simple that a 6th grader can point out the flaws in what you’re saying. It only takes one doctor anywhere in the world at any time in human history who chose the medical profession because he or she felt like there’s more to life than being a narcissistic, materialistic tool, to prove your point wrong. Remember: your claim is that ALL doctors are in it for money. You lose.</p>
Yes. I concentrated specifically in health economics, wrote a capstone paper on financial incentives in medicine, TA’d for labor economics (e.g. how people decide careers), taught medical economics to medical students, spent a semester researching international labor markets in health fields, and currently serve as editor-in-chief of one of the nation’s top health policy journals.</p>
<p>So, BDM what do you think should be done? If you had your way? If it’s not thread hijacking, I’d be truly interested in your opinion on the best way to fix the current problems (and, I suppose, what you consider to be the current problems since everyone has a different opinion on what’s actually wrong with the healthcare system).</p>
<p>I’d also be interested in what you think is the solution. I must admit, health care policy isn’t my forte. What would you suggest I read if I want an introduction on what is wrong with the system and what people think we can do to fix it (preferrable something that doesn’t take too long to read).</p>