Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
spartan max2

On the fence about Universal Healthcare

53 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aztek

apple  watch with heart rhythm monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

We have it in Germany since 1883 and its a nearly perfect system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
9 minutes ago, toast said:

We have it in Germany since 1883 and its a nearly perfect system.

How is it paid for? Like a universal tax from your paycheck, etc. 

Are there copays? 

Is care rationed out in any way? for example can you only get like one exam every 3 months, or is it whenever you need to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
11 minutes ago, toast said:

We have it in Germany since 1883 and its a nearly perfect system.

They'll say it won't work here because blah blah blah freedom or something? Really it's just about money and status. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

it really is about money, nothing else,   insurance company make hundreds of billions, most doctors make 200k +, big pharma makes as much as insurance if not more, none will let it be taken away, not with politicians in their pockets.  but that is not even the biggest issue, what is  is that govt can not do anything right, not to mention better than  private sector,  anyone who seen or felt first hand how gvmnt workers actually perform will see why it would fail from the git go,   i do not  care how good it looks on paper, even less care how it works somewhere else in the world

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 minutes ago, aztek said:

it really is about money, nothing else,   insurance company make hundreds of billions, most doctors make 200k +, big pharma makes as much as insurance if not more, none will let it be taken away, not with politicians in their pockets.  but that is not even the biggest issue, what is  is that govt can not do anything right, not to mention better that private sector,  anyone who seen or felt first hand how gvmnt workers actually perform will see why it would fail from the git go,   i do not  care how good it looks on paper, even less care how it works somewhere else in the world

The movie Brazil comes to mind.  I worked for a county in New Mexico and I later worked for a software company that provides software and network support for county and city governments all over the country.  And the federal level is worse because there is even less accountability.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

There is no way anyone across the pond could be envious of our medical system, especially considering how much we have to pay out of pocket.

I'll take your word for that.  I know that a great many of our neighbors to the north have a habit of coming down for surgeries and even diagnostic imaging due to the extended waiting periods.  When it comes to overall innovation in medicine America is at the top because people here have the incentive to be well compensated for their creativity.  The downside, of course, is the cost of that technology and those pharmaceuticals.  When we eventually attempt to take the "easier", "more equitable" path and we lose that edge and begin to see far worse medical outcomes in areas that we used to excel in, we needn't complain.  It would be hypocritical to do so.  As long as we go into this new path with an understanding and acceptance of what we will be losing to gain a sense of fairness, no harm, no foul.  Those whose instinct is to punish the wealthy or anyone who has something they don't have access to, will find that nothing has really changed for them.  They will have the illusion of security but in fact they will be just as apt to deal with long waiting periods and no ability to ask for specific specialists for their treatment. 

Add to the lack of ready availability of the quality of care we enjoy today, the fact that will become glaringly obvious at that point will be the vast, stark differences in speed of treatment and success of outcomes that the wealthy will enjoy because they CAN pay cash for the entire treatment process.  There will still be very skilled physicians with access to cutting edge tech and drugs, it's just that these things will only be available to the wealthy and the political class in DC. 

Meanwhile, back in East Podunk, a bureaucrat drawing a Federal paycheck will be callously telling you that he's sorry but your beloved granny is too old and too sick to warrant any extra measures to extend her life.  But, never fear, they'll keep her "comfortable" until she shuffles off this mortal coil. Ditto your son's preemie.  It'll cost too much to keep the baby alive until he can survive on his own.  I'm not trying to be crass or offensive, I'm just predicting the new age of bean-counters being in charge of medicine.  

I refuse to believe that we are not creative enough to build a new system that will do the most good, economically and equitably for all groups of citizens.  We will need an intense national dialogue with all the parties at the table speaking brutal truths to each other.  Everyone will have to be willing to compromise or we're all going to suffer, literally.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
24 minutes ago, and then said:

I'll take your word for that.  I know that a great many of our neighbors to the north have a habit of coming down for surgeries and even diagnostic imaging due to the extended waiting periods.  When it comes to overall innovation in medicine America is at the top because people here have the incentive to be well compensated for their creativity.  The downside, of course, is the cost of that technology and those pharmaceuticals.  When we eventually attempt to take the "easier", "more equitable" path and we lose that edge and begin to see far worse medical outcomes in areas that we used to excel in, we needn't complain.  It would be hypocritical to do so.  As long as we go into this new path with an understanding and acceptance of what we will be losing to gain a sense of fairness, no harm, no foul.  Those whose instinct is to punish the wealthy or anyone who has something they don't have access to, will find that nothing has really changed for them.  They will have the illusion of security but in fact they will be just as apt to deal with long waiting periods and no ability to ask for specific specialists for their treatment. 

Add to the lack of ready availability of the quality of care we enjoy today, the fact that will become glaringly obvious at that point will be the vast, stark differences in speed of treatment and success of outcomes that the wealthy will enjoy because they CAN pay cash for the entire treatment process.  There will still be very skilled physicians with access to cutting edge tech and drugs, it's just that these things will only be available to the wealthy and the political class in DC. 

Meanwhile, back in East Podunk, a bureaucrat drawing a Federal paycheck will be callously telling you that he's sorry but your beloved granny is too old and too sick to warrant any extra measures to extend her life.  But, never fear, they'll keep her "comfortable" until she shuffles off this mortal coil. Ditto your son's preemie.  It'll cost too much to keep the baby alive until he can survive on his own.  I'm not trying to be crass or offensive, I'm just predicting the new age of bean-counters being in charge of medicine.  

I refuse to believe that we are not creative enough to build a new system that will do the most good, economically and equitably for all groups of citizens.  We will need an intense national dialogue with all the parties at the table speaking brutal truths to each other.  Everyone will have to be willing to compromise or we're all going to suffer, literally.

I don't know where North is for you, I assume you are talking about Canada.  In the U.S.  there are a lot of problems waiting to see a primary care doctor.  And you can't get scheduled for surgery without a primary care or specialist sending you to a surgeon.  People end up in the hospital in a hallway because there are no rooms available waiting for an appointment with their primary care because any new patient gets put out 6 to 12 months and regular patients have to wait 2 or 3 months for a regular visit.  That is in the U.S. in the largest city in New Mexico.  We have a shortage of doctors so no matter what kind of technology there is, if you can't see a doctor in a timely manner then it is useless.  Maybe you are in a big city that has lots of doctors like Houston or Dallas but in rural areas and smaller cities there are never enough doctors.  That is going on now, not when we "take the easy way" as you put it, which is a weird way to put it.

P.S. as for being creative enough to build a new system, we have to dismantle the old system first and that is the hard part since so many corporations expect their huge incomes from the current system.  Maybe you have some creative ideas about that.  Building a new system will be easy once we get rid of the reprobates keeping our system broken.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 hour ago, and then said:

I'll take your word for that.  I know that a great many of our neighbors to the north have a habit of coming down for surgeries and even diagnostic imaging due to the extended waiting periods.  When it comes to overall innovation in medicine America is at the top because people here have the incentive to be well compensated for their creativity.  The downside, of course, is the cost of that technology and those pharmaceuticals.  When we eventually attempt to take the "easier", "more equitable" path and we lose that edge and begin to see far worse medical outcomes in areas that we used to excel in, we needn't complain.  It would be hypocritical to do so.  As long as we go into this new path with an understanding and acceptance of what we will be losing to gain a sense of fairness, no harm, no foul.  Those whose instinct is to punish the wealthy or anyone who has something they don't have access to, will find that nothing has really changed for them.  They will have the illusion of security but in fact they will be just as apt to deal with long waiting periods and no ability to ask for specific specialists for their treatment. 

Add to the lack of ready availability of the quality of care we enjoy today, the fact that will become glaringly obvious at that point will be the vast, stark differences in speed of treatment and success of outcomes that the wealthy will enjoy because they CAN pay cash for the entire treatment process.  There will still be very skilled physicians with access to cutting edge tech and drugs, it's just that these things will only be available to the wealthy and the political class in DC. 

Meanwhile, back in East Podunk, a bureaucrat drawing a Federal paycheck will be callously telling you that he's sorry but your beloved granny is too old and too sick to warrant any extra measures to extend her life.  But, never fear, they'll keep her "comfortable" until she shuffles off this mortal coil. Ditto your son's preemie.  It'll cost too much to keep the baby alive until he can survive on his own.  I'm not trying to be crass or offensive, I'm just predicting the new age of bean-counters being in charge of medicine.  

I refuse to believe that we are not creative enough to build a new system that will do the most good, economically and equitably for all groups of citizens.  We will need an intense national dialogue with all the parties at the table speaking brutal truths to each other.  Everyone will have to be willing to compromise or we're all going to suffer, literally.

that is what really happening in moldova today, if you call for an ambulance, and say a person  their 70s, they wont even come, same thing when you go to a doctor, a subsidized doctor that is, they wont even bother making anyone comfortable, of course for cash they'll resurrect a mummy. but very few there have cash there. 

i too have friends in canada, and they tell me their free doctors are very much inferior than those who have private practice, waiting times could be weeks,  also they have a limit on how much doctors can make a year, it is not uncommon for doctors to close practices close to end of the year, cuz they wil be tax up the a$$ on money made over the limit

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't know where North is for you, I assume you are talking about Canada.  In the U.S.  there are a lot of problems waiting to see a primary care doctor.  And you can't get scheduled for surgery without a primary care or specialist sending you to a surgeon. 

that  all depends on your insurance policy,  it may work that way with medicaid, or inferior plans,  my plan does not require referrals, if i have a stomach ache, i don't need to go to a primary doctor to get referred to a GI  doctor. 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
21 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It's been on my mind lately, so I figured I would post here to get people's thoughts. 

I am on the fence about if universal healthcare is a good idea or not.

On one hand, splitting the Insurance risk amongst everyone might may insurance cheaper. More healthy people in the insurance pool paying for the sick, on the other hand there would also be more sick people in the pool.

Taxes would have to go up, there is no doubt there. But by how much? I already pay 200 a month for insurance would the tax end up making me pay more then 200 a month, the same, or less? Taxes typically take more the higher your income the more that will be took out from a tax. 

On one hand, it is morally good for people who are sick for no reason of their own to not be drowned by health bills, on the other hand it sucks to have to pay more to pay for people who do not care about taking care of themselves, basically paying for others bad decisions. 

On one hand, health shouldn't be a for profit system it's kind of messed up, on the other hand the government is often slow and inefficient. 

 

I honestly just am not sure.

 

What are peoples thoughts on it? And their reasons for why it is good or bad?

There are not any real good reasons for Universal Healthcare...aka...Single Payer.  In fact...it is a ruse by the Left.  It always has been.  

Let's say you need a hernia operation.  Do you really want a bureaucrat in Washington making the decision on who will do the procedure, where the procedure will be done and when?

Besides that  there are not enough taxes that can be raised to pay for it.   What we need is the 'old' insurance plans with competition between states for health insurance.  The cost would go done dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

That is going on now, not when we "take the easy way" as you put it, which is a weird way to put it.

Actually, I live a few miles from a city of fewer than 50,000 whose primary industry transitioned from agriculture in the lead up to the 90s to nearly 100% tourism today.  We are blessed with may physicians but not so many choices for specialties.  My PCP rarely makes me wait more than a week to ten days and will almost always accommodate me in a next day time frame IF I'm willing to come to the office and wait for slot to open where he can work me in between patients.  So, yes, I am fortunate.  Do you think your situation is more common?  I have no idea.  

By "take the easy way" I didn't mean it as a barb or an insult.  I was phrasing it as I think many Americans today think of the solution of Medicare for all.  Those who are frequent flyers due to chronic health conditions and those who actually have worked within the belly of the beast will understand intuitively that the concept they are selling is a myth.  It simply will not work at any level and the reason is fundamental and inescapable.  Anyone who begins a conversation under the assumption that a government will excel at providing services at a manageable price point is going to have to have a LOT of solid statistical proof before I'd accept it.  Having worked in University hospital systems with level 1 trauma centers and within a busy VA medical center, I've seen how governments handle the business of healthcare.  I'm not casting aspersions on the people who staff these institutions.  I am very willing to speak the ugly truth about how those people get shackled by the ponderous culture that comes with government work.  Innovation is considered to be a negative because change is a hateful, risky proposition in those systems.

What will inevitably happen once our country elects representatives that demand this transition is the not so slow demise of a system that today delivers very good care and in many instances, excellent care to everyone who comes through the doors, regardless of their ability to pay.  Every major indicator of efficiency will fall and the moral of the workers will follow soon after.  If that sounds like hyperbole I can't help it.  It's what I actually saw in those places.  

As of 2018, there were approximately 60 million enrolled in Medicare.  75 million in Medicaid.  Approximately 200 million had private health coverage and about 30 million were uninsured.  Medicare is considered to be excellent coverage but somewhat limited by choice in providers.  Medicaid is universally unliked and I've seen studies that show uninsured people having better care outcomes than most on Medicaid.  

I believe that Medicare's reputation is well deserved and accurate.  The problem will come as soon as the pool expands from 60 million to attempting to cover everyone from all other pools under one aegis.  Imagine a company that has become efficient handling 60 million being tasked with doing the same quality for 5 times as many.  Further imagine that the age, socio economic background, education level and tendency for compliance to instructions are all much more sketchy and diverse.  To expect the delivery of care to the larger group to match the satisfaction found in the smaller group simply isn't logical.  IOW, "medicare for all" will just be a slogan to create the single largest broken bureaucracy America has ever known.  

The numbers of patients to be seen daily will dwarf the capacity of the physicians and facilities until adjustments can be made.  Labs, imaging centers, supply chains all will be thrown into chaos for quite a while during the attempt to unify and streamline services.  It will be a ponderous mess.  I believe the net effect will be to lose more patients to cancer and other chronic conditions and to have people who once could be seen prophylactically and kept relatively healthy, dying because they had to wait so long for rationed appointment slots.  In a few years, maybe, the system would improve some but it would never be able to match the efficiency and throughput we have today.

I know, I'm just a ray of sunshine.  Sorry, knowing what I do about how things operate within these institutions I have no faith that the government will ever be able to deliver on their promises they're making today.  These people are used car salesmen trying to build a space shuttle.  It doesn't end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
6 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

How is it paid for? Like a universal tax from your paycheck, etc. 

Are there copays? 

Is care rationed out in any way? for example can you only get like one exam every 3 months, or is it whenever you need to.

Here is a little story. I work with a woman from Sweden who is a large group account manager for employee benefits (health and life insurance for employees) I jokingly commented to her about the irony of a person from the paradise of a nation with socialized medicine coming here and working in our health insurance industry. Her response was there are major flaws in such systems. I asked for her to explain further and she gave me this example. 

Her father, a man in his sixties, discovered a couple of years ago that he had some kind of condition with his heart. He’s had it his entire life but never knew because when he was younger and healthier it wasn’t obvious. A simple operation could solve the condition for good, however the medical system in Sweden determined that for a man his age the more affordable approach is daily medicine for the rest of his life. She said in the USA’s for profit system he could have elected to have the surgery and his insurance would have covered most of it and the condition would not be an issue for his remaining years, but in Sweden it’s a pill a day and possibly a complication as he gets older which may one day contribute to his death.

Examples like this are why I doubt the absolute confidence that a guy like toast has in his system. The truth is there are flaws in every system and different systems may not absolutely be inferior or superior to each other.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

every system is great if you are young healthy and not using it,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

How is it paid for? Like a universal tax from your paycheck, etc. 

The health insurance contribution of the statutory health insurance is currently 14,6% of the gross salary. 50% of the 14,6% to be paid by the employer and 50% by the employee. Example: with a gross salary of 4000€/month the employee has a monthly rate of 312€. There is also a limitation from a yearly gross salary of 54k€ on. If at this value or above it, the monthly rate is frozen at 356€/month, no matter if the salary is 54k€/year or 250k€ or 2M€.

Quote

Are there copays?

No copays. There are some very little additional contributions. e.g., for hospital stay. The fee is 10€ per day but limited to 280€/year, so from day 29 on there is no more fee to be paid by the patient/insuree. Another fee to be paid is a quarterly fee of 10€ to the doctor`s practice which is visited by the patient.

Quote

Is care rationed out in any way? for example can you only get like one exam every 3 months, or is it whenever you need to.

No rationing, no limitations, people get all exams and treatments they need.

Also important to know is that the percentage, which is at 14,6% this year, vary from year to year depending on the earnings of the statutory health insurance bodies in total. The 2019 rates were lower than the 2018 rates because of a surplus of 21B€ in 2018.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
12 hours ago, and then said:

I'll take your word for that.  I know that a great many of our neighbors to the north have a habit of coming down for surgeries and even diagnostic imaging due to the extended waiting periods.  When it comes to overall innovation in medicine America is at the top because people here have the incentive to be well compensated for their creativity.  The downside, of course, is the cost of that technology and those pharmaceuticals.  When we eventually attempt to take the "easier", "more equitable" path and we lose that edge and begin to see far worse medical outcomes in areas that we used to excel in, we needn't complain.  It would be hypocritical to do so.  As long as we go into this new path with an understanding and acceptance of what we will be losing to gain a sense of fairness, no harm, no foul.  Those whose instinct is to punish the wealthy or anyone who has something they don't have access to, will find that nothing has really changed for them.  They will have the illusion of security but in fact they will be just as apt to deal with long waiting periods and no ability to ask for specific specialists for their treatment. 

Add to the lack of ready availability of the quality of care we enjoy today, the fact that will become glaringly obvious at that point will be the vast, stark differences in speed of treatment and success of outcomes that the wealthy will enjoy because they CAN pay cash for the entire treatment process.  There will still be very skilled physicians with access to cutting edge tech and drugs, it's just that these things will only be available to the wealthy and the political class in DC. 

Meanwhile, back in East Podunk, a bureaucrat drawing a Federal paycheck will be callously telling you that he's sorry but your beloved granny is too old and too sick to warrant any extra measures to extend her life.  But, never fear, they'll keep her "comfortable" until she shuffles off this mortal coil. Ditto your son's preemie.  It'll cost too much to keep the baby alive until he can survive on his own.  I'm not trying to be crass or offensive, I'm just predicting the new age of bean-counters being in charge of medicine.  

I refuse to believe that we are not creative enough to build a new system that will do the most good, economically and equitably for all groups of citizens.  We will need an intense national dialogue with all the parties at the table speaking brutal truths to each other.  Everyone will have to be willing to compromise or we're all going to suffer, literally.

We are definitely CREATIVE enough...we're just not COMPASSIONATE enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
13 hours ago, aztek said:

that  all depends on your insurance policy,  it may work that way with medicaid, or inferior plans,  my plan does not require referrals, if i have a stomach ache, i don't need to go to a primary doctor to get referred to a GI  doctor. 

No, it works that way for medicare and any other insurance because we don't have enough doctors.   Sometimes if you have medicaid you can be seen quicker, depending on why you are going to the doctor (mental health is an example, we have practices that only see medicaid patients)  When I moved back here I called several different groups to get an appointment with a primary physician to establish myself and the soonest I could be seen by anyone was a 6 month wait for an appointment.  I have very good insurance.  My friend, who is on a medicare plan with a specific hospital has to pay a 50.00 copay to go to urgent care and last time she was hospitalized she spent 4 days in the ER becuase there were no rooms at that hospital.  They did move her to the hall for a while at one point because they needed her cubicle for an emergency.  Like I said before, you probably live in a big city where you have plenty of doctors.  Rural U.S. does not have enough doctors.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, it works that way for medicare and any other insurance because we don't have enough doctors.   Sometimes if you have medicaid you can be seen quicker, depending on why you are going to the doctor (mental health is an example, we have practices that only see medicaid patients)  When I moved back here I called to get an appointment with a primary physician to establish myself and it was a 6 month wait for an appointment.  I have very good insurance.  My friend, who is on a medicare plan with a specific hospital has to pay a 50.00 copay to go to urgent care and last time she was hospitalized she spent 4 days in the ER becuase there were no rooms at that hospital.  They did move her to the hall for a while at one point because they needed her cubicle for an emergency.  Like I said before, you probably live in a big city where you have plenty of doctors.  Rural U.S. does not have enough doctors.

that bad, uh,  and this is with private healthcare, imagine how bad it will get if gvmnt gets their hands on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56

@and then Medicare is never going to be for all.  But if we got all of congress, the senate and the president on medicare (most of them are old enough) instead of their golden parachute care then medicare would get better and we would have a better chance at a universal care system.  That isn't going to happen, maybe term limits for congress and senate will happen before that (when h*ll freezes) so don't worry about it.  There are some states who provide medicaid better than others.  It is always state run and someone who is eligible for medicaid in New Mexico would die before they got medicaid in other states (a midwest state comes to mind).  The way the system we now have of required insurance or a tax penalty is idiotic and leaves a lot of people in the lurch.  The only reason it go passed is because of insurance company influence.  Much like the car insurance being required now.  The rates sky rocketed for existing customers.  Don't worry about anything changing anytime soon, except maybe no one being able to afford medicine or their insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
7 hours ago, toast said:

The health insurance contribution of the statutory health insurance is currently 14,6% of the gross salary. 50% of the 14,6% to be paid by the employer and 50% by the employee. Example: with a gross salary of 4000€/month the employee has a monthly rate of 312€. There is also a limitation from a yearly gross salary of 54k€ on. If at this value or above it, the monthly rate is frozen at 356€/month, no matter if the salary is 54k€/year or 250k€ or 2M€.

No copays. There are some very little additional contributions. e.g., for hospital stay. The fee is 10€ per day but limited to 280€/year, so from day 29 on there is no more fee to be paid by the patient/insuree. Another fee to be paid is a quarterly fee of 10€ to the doctor`s practice which is visited by the patient.

No rationing, no limitations, people get all exams and treatments they need.

Also important to know is that the percentage, which is at 14,6% this year, vary from year to year depending on the earnings of the statutory health insurance bodies in total. The 2019 rates were lower than the 2018 rates because of a surplus of 21B€ in 2018.

Thanks for getting back to me. Follow-up question.

Is there a difficulty having enough doctors?

The internet says doctors in Germany make between 65-80k euros. 

That's pretty low compared to American doctors pay. Given how much school a doctor needs does Germany run into a shortages of medical staff?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
10 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Thanks for getting back to me. Follow-up question.

Is there a difficulty having enough doctors?

The internet says doctors in Germany make between 65-80k euros. 

That's pretty low compared to American doctors pay. Given how much school a doctor needs does Germany run into a shortages of medical staff?

 

I think that is one of the problems in the U.S.  the doctors expect 400,000 + a year and in the 90's when things started changing because of some mistakes our governor's appointees made those earning 700,000 a year were down to 400,000 a year and left the state and we have not recovered since.  If medical school were more affordable then doctors would not expect such high salaries to pay back their medical school fees.  But then, nowadays all college is too expensive for what you get. 

@toast  How are the doctors in Germany educated?  Do they have to pass tests and get their education paid for or do they have to pay huge amounts like U.S. doctors?

 

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think that is one of the problems in the U.S.  the doctors expect 400,000 + a year and in the 90's when things started changing because of some mistakes our governor's appointees made those earning 700,000 a year were down to 400,000 a year and left the state and we have not recovered since.  If medical school were more affordable then doctors would not expect such high salaries to pay back their medical school fees.  But then, nowadays all college is too expensive for what you get. 

@toast  How are the doctors in Germany educated?  Do they have to pass tests and get their education paid for or do they have to pay huge amounts like U.S. doctors?

 

And the follow-up to that question, Toast.  How is the education paid for if it is by the government, is it through a similar tax as the healthcare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
11 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think that is one of the problems in the U.S.  the doctors expect 400,000 + a year and in the 90's when things started changing because of some mistakes our governor's appointees made those earning 700,000 a year were down to 400,000 a year and left the state and we have not recovered since.  If medical school were more affordable then doctors would not expect such high salaries to pay back their medical school fees.  But then, nowadays all college is too expensive for what you get. 

 

 

vast majority of people become doctors\nurses for the pay, not cuz they want to help people,  it is a very well compensated field, made possible by high price healthcare. take that away and you will see 3\4 or more not even consider that field, that is what you get  when you commercialize healthcare.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
10 minutes ago, aztek said:

vast majority of people become doctors\nurses for the pay, not cuz they want to help people,  it is a very well compensated field, made possible by high price healthcare. take that away and you will see 3\4 or more not even consider that field, that is what you get  when you commercialize healthcare.  

Yes, I knew a guy who tried to get in to medical school but couldn't so he became a vet.  He was barely tolerant of animals but it also pays well.  He didn't last long though because he trained with a rural vet that specialized in livestock and he could not get the hang of taking care of big animals, actually killed a couple of horses.  So, he found another profession, probably a drug rep.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, I knew a guy who tried to get in to medical school but couldn't so he became a vet.  He was barely tolerant of animals but it also pays well.  He didn't last long though because he trained with a rural vet that specialized in livestock and he could not get the hang of taking care of big animals, actually killed a couple of horses.  So, he found another profession, probably a drug rep.

that is effing sad,  good thing he never made a doctor or a nurse,  i have a cousin like that, all she cared was money, but she never made to med school either,  it requires hard work,  and she is lazy and careless, she is at a front desk  in some med office now, and i don't think she is good at it, i have a suspicion she is involved with office manager, i don't see why they would keep her otherwise

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.