The greedy rich owe their ill gotten gains to three factors

[KrazyHorse]

So what? I was solving stochastic differential equations for fun (and profit?) prior to that. Googling some stuff and scanning it is just my entertainment.

[Jon Miller]

By the way, doctors' salaries are much more dependent on how effectively the college of physicians prevents new labour from flowing into medicine than they are on productivity enhancements.

I have done my part too!

JM

(don't tell me you have never failed (or even given a C) to a premed)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

#1) Staying in school.
#2) Working longer hours.
#3) Living in two income households (wife and husband both work)

Those greedy bastards! How dare they use these methods to get rich!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/...ncome_ineq.php

the greedy liberal elite rich bastards... their money should be taken away and given to the hard working right wing poor

poor hard right wing workers revolution is in order

[Dis]

I thought women drained money? so how could 2 incomes be any better?

unless you had 2 guys who were married. . This will be my new get rich quick scheme. Marry a guy.

[Guynemer]

I'm not saying it would. In fact, Guy is reporting that the reimbursements are declining. But if he is able to see more patients or do more procedures, he may still receive an increase in pay. It's not so simple an equation in the hospital, but may be more so in his private practice.

I can't see any more patients; the schedule is routinely full every day. I'll see around 40 patients each day, give or take. Nice thought, though.

[Guynemer]

Also, while ~85% is what Medicaid will offer relative to private insurance, in actuality, the amount paid is considerably less.

Bottom line--being a doctor is not a guaranteed ticket to being rich. For some, yes. For others, no. Again, I'm okay with that. I just want the truth of the matter to be known.

[pchang]

You guys are mixing things up

Also, while ~85% is what Medicaid will offer relative to private insurance, in actuality, the amount paid is considerably less.

Bottom line--being a doctor is not a guaranteed ticket to being rich. For some, yes. For others, no. Again, I'm okay with that. I just want the truth of the matter to be known.

The $160,000 figure was the average for a general practitioner (usually an internal medicine doc who treats everyone). Pediatricians make less on average (I think the figure is closer to $120,000). If you are a doctor and want to be rich, you go into something like oncology and work for a biotech company. Your salary will be in the high 100s/low 200s and you get an IPO lottery ticket for the really big bucks.

[The Mad Monk]

Also, while ~85% is what Medicaid will offer relative to private insurance, in actuality, the amount paid is considerably less.

I have to ask, then (and yank the subject around once again), do you think nationalized health care will benifit doctors?

[Guynemer]

In some respects yes, in some no. On the one hand, having one universal system will cut down on overhead and money lost to the inefficiency of dealing with, literally, hundreds of different health plans. On the other hand, undoubtedly, less money will be coming in.

I'm less interested in how it will benefit/harm doctors, and more interested in how it will benefit/harm patients.

[DanS]

Also, while ~85% is what Medicaid will offer relative to private insurance, in actuality, the amount paid is considerably less.

Bottom line--being a doctor is not a guaranteed ticket to being rich. For some, yes. For others, no. Again, I'm okay with that. I just want the truth of the matter to be known.

Let's be clear, though. Few doctors have taken a vow of poverty like you have.

[DanS]

The $160,000 figure was the average for a general practitioner (usually an internal medicine doc who treats everyone).

From what I have seen on the almighty Google, pediatricians make on average $160,000. But Guy said that many/most pediatricians do some ob/gyn work, which pays more.

[Guynemer]

No no no. Family practiconers do OB/GYN work. Pediatricians do not. Big difference between the two.

And I have hardly taken a "vow of poverty."

[DanS]

You have chosen the lowest paying part of one of the lowest paying medical specialties. Meanwhile, you paid equal amounts (in $, perhaps not in time) for education of those in higher paying parts of higher paying specialties.

That's why I describe it as a vow of poverty.

[DirtyMartini]

In some respects yes, in some no. On the one hand, having one universal system will cut down on overhead and money lost to the inefficiency of dealing with, literally, hundreds of different health plans. On the other hand, undoubtedly, less money will be coming in.

I'm less interested in how it will benefit/harm doctors, and more interested in how it will benefit/harm patients.

I think a Full and Complete universal heath care system will benefit doctors and patients both. In particular, I think primary care salaries would go up (and subspecialty salaries would come down). However, implementing half measures like lowering the Medicare age to 55 would absolutely cripple the majority of US hospitals. For most health care institutions, treating a medicare patient results in a loss on the balance sheet -- not just a net loss relative to seeing a patient with private insurance. Medicare reimbursement generally fails to even cover the costs incurred treating the patient, much less provide for profit.