PDA

View Full Version : One of the more interesting polls I've seen



Buzz
12-18-2009, 02:41 PM
They give an indication of what kind of reform people support, and what they don't...

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults121809?source=dkos_st1218

The public is against the direction that the senate has been taking with their bill.

YardleyLabs
12-18-2009, 02:50 PM
They give an indication of what kind of reform people support, and what they don't...

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults121809?source=dkos_st1218

The public is against the direction that the senate has been taking with their bill.
Unfortunately, what it does say is that the public opposes a personal mandate regardless of how it is structured. Unfortunately, in the absence of a mandate it is impossible to have other insurance reforms that are popular such as elmination of pre-existing condition exclusions, elimination of higher ratings based on higher risk, etc. Those changes are only practical if everyone has coverage since then the risk pool is large enough to minimize the impact. If insurance companies are hit with those restrictions but coverage is not mandated, I wold expect to see more people deciding not to purchase coverage until the "needed" it.

Buzz
12-18-2009, 03:39 PM
Unfortunately, what it does say is that the public opposes a personal mandate regardless of how it is structured. Unfortunately, in the absence of a mandate it is impossible to have other insurance reforms that are popular such as elmination of pre-existing condition exclusions, elimination of higher ratings based on higher risk, etc. Those changes are only practical if everyone has coverage since then the risk pool is large enough to minimize the impact. If insurance companies are hit with those restrictions but coverage is not mandated, I wold expect to see more people deciding not to purchase coverage until the "needed" it.

I agree with you. What is discouraging is that we haven't seen advocates from the White House out explaining these things. In fact, they never came out to speak at all until it was time to jump all over Howard Dean.

The poll also shows that the public is even more against mandates when the reforms doesn't provide them with any choice but to go to a private insurance company to purchase their coverage.

What blows my mind is the Republicans claim to be friends of business, but they seem to think that having business foot the bill for healthcare in the US is just fine. This year at renewal, we got hammered with a 49% increase in premiums. We had a couple of minor surgeries and added an older employee.

The one beef I have is that they never asked in the poll about mandate + public option or medicare buy-in.

Cody Covey
12-18-2009, 07:00 PM
Unfortunately, what it does say is that the public opposes a personal mandate regardless of how it is structured. Unfortunately, in the absence of a mandate it is impossible to have other insurance reforms that are popular such as elmination of pre-existing condition exclusions, elimination of higher ratings based on higher risk, etc. Those changes are only practical if everyone has coverage since then the risk pool is large enough to minimize the impact. If insurance companies are hit with those restrictions but coverage is not mandated, I wold expect to see more people deciding not to purchase coverage until the "needed" it.

Why exactly am I required to buy something because I'm alive. If what you propose gets imposed on on insurance companies they will no longer be insurance companies but subsidizing the citizens of America. It's not insurance if you sign up with a condition it is just someone else paying for your medical bill. Should i attempt to take my car in after i wreck and demand the insurance company takes me on and then pay for the bill?

YardleyLabs
12-18-2009, 07:23 PM
Why exactly am I required to buy something because I'm alive. If what you propose gets imposed on on insurance companies they will no longer be insurance companies but subsidizing the citizens of America. It's not insurance if you sign up with a condition it is just someone else paying for your medical bill. Should i attempt to take my car in after i wreck and demand the insurance company takes me on and then pay for the bill?
With universal coverage, risks are easy to estimate and there is no potential for someone to only sign up when they have a problem. Therefore there is no reason for insurance companies to exclude someone from coverage.

Absent universal coverage, if restrictions are not present to prevent abuse, abuse will happen. In those caes, people with low risk factors decide not to purchase coverage. If they are unfortunate enough to be involved in major accidents, they end up being covered my Medicaid or simply not paying their bills in almost all cases. We the taxpayers end up eating the cost of their decision.

Personally, from an economic perspective, I believe that there should either be universal coverage or no coverage at all. An "in between" position from my perspective would be that anyone that fails to buy coverage would not be eligible to receive any medical care without prepayment of all costs. If they subsequently decide they want coverage they should have to pay a substantial penalty in higher premiums and be excluded from reimbursement for pre-existing conditions for a long period and from all other conditions for a period of months. This is somewhat parallel to the approach that was used for Medicare recipients who opted not to purchase prescription coverage.

I believe that the unusually high costs of health care in the US combined with the relatively poor health outcomes relative to other developed countries is a direct result of the manner in which we have organized health insurance.

dnf777
12-18-2009, 07:31 PM
I believe that the unusually high costs of health care in the US combined with the relatively poor health outcomes relative to other developed countries is a direct result of the manner in which we have organized health insurance.

And the way we eat Twinkies.
A morbidly obese nation is not a healthy nation.

I always am taken aback when I pick up the kids at daycare. Kids from 5 to 12, already obese, snacking on sugar-frosted cookies and sodas. God forbid any fruit or vegetables, or water!

Cody Covey
12-18-2009, 11:38 PM
So then it is not insurance...period. If you lied on a form and didn't disclose a pre existing condition then frankly its your own damn fault. I think people forget that insurance are not charities they are businesses. Just because they are in the medical field means that can't make a profit and deserve to be lied to and then eat the bill? I would rather no one had insurance then me having to pay for people to lazy to get it themselves. I pay 100 dollars a month for health, dental, vision and life insurance. If you can't afford 100 dollars than your priorities need to be straightened out.

And still doesn't address the fact that i have to purchase something because of living. Seems a little ridiculous that because my mother gave birth i now have to purchase insurance or face penalties.

dnf777
12-19-2009, 06:12 AM
I pay 100 dollars a month for health, dental, vision and life insurance. If you can't afford 100 dollars than your priorities need to be straightened out.

Wow. And I get accused of BS when I state well documented facts here. Let's see a health insurance plan for $100 per month, (I'm sure you're employer isn't providing any help, that would be communism, right?).

I'll bet there's more folks than just me wondering where we can get health, dental, vision and LIFE insurance for a Ben Franklin per month??? And I need less than a quarter-million deductible on health, and less than a 100-year elimination period for life. :rolleyes:

I might have been born at night.....but not LAST night!

YardleyLabs
12-19-2009, 06:17 AM
So then it is not insurance...period. If you lied on a form and didn't disclose a pre existing condition then frankly its your own damn fault. I think people forget that insurance are not charities they are businesses. Just because they are in the medical field means that can't make a profit and deserve to be lied to and then eat the bill? I would rather no one had insurance then me having to pay for people to lazy to get it themselves. I pay 100 dollars a month for health, dental, vision and life insurance. If you can't afford 100 dollars than your priorities need to be straightened out.

And still doesn't address the fact that i have to purchase something because of living. Seems a little ridiculous that because my mother gave birth i now have to purchase insurance or face penalties.
At $100/month you presumably are young, live in a low cost area, and may have some limitations on coverage that you may or may not know of or else your employer ispaying for a lot of the cost. One of the major negatives of employer paid insurance is that most employees actually have no idea how much their insurance costs until they find themselves on COBRA with no income and a bill for the total premium. That is one of the reasons I would like to see employers out of the picture. Let emplyees see that money in their paychecks first and then see it being taken out to pay for health insurance.

I pay $600/month for medical and prescription coverage for myself with a $1000 deductible for out of network services. Family coverage for the same plan is almost $2000/month. I live in a high cost area. Nationwide, the average cost for individual coverage is $400-500/month and $1000+ for family coverage. ithin that, older recipients, such as me, may pay 2-3 times the amount paid by younger recipients.

dnf777
12-19-2009, 09:16 AM
Where's M&K when you need the BS policeman???
You buy this? Health, dental, vision, AND life for $100/month???!!!
Come on, or is this just another "if your in the clique, you can do no wrong or spew no BS"??? Total and utter lack of consistency or standards.
Lots of credibility circling the drain here guys.

What's good for the goose regards.....

(not directed at you goose!)

K G
12-19-2009, 12:44 PM
Must be a "pay me later" type policy with $5k deductible adn 50/50 co-pay or something of that ilk...I'm thinking $10k death benefit...

Good way to debilitate your savings in the future regards,

kg

M&K's Retrievers
12-19-2009, 03:54 PM
Where's M&K when you need the BS policeman???
You buy this? Health, dental, vision, AND life for $100/month???!!!
Come on, or is this just another "if your in the clique, you can do no wrong or spew no BS"??? Total and utter lack of consistency or standards.
Lots of credibility circling the drain here guys.

What's good for the goose regards.....

(not directed at you goose!)

My guess is that is his share of his group coverage for a single employee. Dental, Vision and Life are not usually included in an individual policy and when they are they are very minimal benefits ie window dressing. If it is an individual policy, remember, the big print giveth and the small print taketh away.

Cody Covey
12-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Yes my employer pays most of the costs but that is my point most places (at least in this area) offer insurance after 90 days of employment so if you can't get health coverage you need to get your priorities correct. DNF would you like me to scan a pay stub so you can see i get 48 dollars taken out every 2 weeks? OR would you rather continue to spew bullshit you know nothing about? The Dental is the same as every other plan in the area i've seen. 1200 limit a year small deductable i don't remember the exact amount. Deductable for catastrophic injury is 750. I'm 22 and single. I have 120k life insurance on top of the 10k that is given by employer. Please check you facts before you start calling people names and a liar DNF or you look like an idiot.

JDogger
12-19-2009, 09:28 PM
I'm 22 and single.

How did we guess that? Not everyone is though. Good luck in the future. I mean it.

JD

Cody Covey
12-19-2009, 11:48 PM
Everyone where i work pays the same amount. The only thing that makes a difference is the extras you can buy and amount of dependents.

Gerry Clinchy
12-20-2009, 02:37 AM
If pre-existing conditions are not subject to certain waiting periods/exclusions, then what is being purchased is no longer "insurance". It is something else. Insurance is something you pay for in case a catastrophe occurs ... not after.

So, that pre-existing condition is really a totally different category from everyone else. As cited, without some penalty associated with not purchasing health insurance, ALL of us should just wait until we get sick before purchasing coverage.

Interestingly, we seem to know very little about what Congress is proposing for us. We know that the cost of premiums will have a cap related to income; that the coverage will not include abortions (from what we can tell); and that pre-existing conditions will not preclude coverage. We also know (maybe) that a primary care professional may not always be an MD. We recently learned that there maybe an annual cap on benefits (maybe?). OTOH, we don't know anything, really, about deductibles or co-pays. As I understand it, since the most recent changes have been made behind closed doors by only relatively few members of the Senate, even the Senators who will have to vote on the bill will not have seen it until just hours before they must vote on it.

So much for transparency in the decision-making process. Reform may be needed, but if the reform does not accomplish improvement, it is no better than no reform at all. It simply establishes a mammouth bureaucracy which will control up 20% to 30% of the economy.

dnf777
12-20-2009, 05:30 AM
Yes my employer pays most of the costs but that is my point most places (at least in this area) offer insurance after 90 days of employment so if you can't get health coverage you need to get your priorities correct. DNF would you like me to scan a pay stub so you can see i get 48 dollars taken out every 2 weeks? OR would you rather continue to spew bullshit you know nothing about? The Dental is the same as every other plan in the area i've seen. 1200 limit a year small deductable i don't remember the exact amount. Deductable for catastrophic injury is 750. I'm 22 and single. I have 120k life insurance on top of the 10k that is given by employer. Please check you facts before you start calling people names and a liar DNF or you look like an idiot.

You implied that your insurance costs 100/month all by yourself. Let's see what you said:

I would rather no one had insurance then me having to pay for people to lazy to get it themselves. I pay 100 dollars a month for health, dental, vision and life insurance. If you can't afford 100 dollars than your priorities need to be straightened out.

Hmmm...YOU having to pay for others? You have no problem with others (your company) paying for YOU?? You glossed over that little point during your rant about your lazy fellow man.

And that part about "if you can't affor 100 dollars..."

So that assumes everyone else out there without insurance is working for your company or a similar one, and just chooses not to pay??

Got a news flash for ya, YOU are the idiot if you think most unisnsured people in this country are being offered a similar benefit package as yours, and are just choosing not to pay 100 bucks per month!!!

Many uninsured are people who have worked longer than you have. Longer than you've been ALIVE, I might add. Many who have had the benefits they signed on for back in the 70s yanked out from under their feet, despite contracts. Don't get so smug.

I'm happy that you have such a benevolent employer. I'm sure millions of people wish they had the opportunity to buy into such a good policy. I understand much of your comments now though. When I was 22, I was an angry young republican too! Thankfully, I outgrew it.

Have a nice day

YardleyLabs
12-20-2009, 06:50 AM
It is great that eildydar is one of the 60% of employees who receives health insurance through their job and better still that he works for an employer that picks up the bulk of the cost. Fo the 40% of people who do not receive coverage through an employer, or for those who do but who must still pay the bulk of the cost from their own pockets, the situation is very, very different. However, there is no question that the debate about health insurance is colored primarily by the fact that the majority of the population has no idea how much their coverage actually costs or the cost of the health services they consume. In that situation, how can the "free market" possibly work? It is no surprise that in the area of health care that free market capitalism hasn't worked -- it hasn't been given a chance. Either lket it work by eliminating all hidden health insurance subsidies -- whether from the government or from employers -- or recognize that a regulator approach will be needed to control costs and try to structure that approach to mimic economic forces as much as possible.

dnf777
12-20-2009, 07:18 AM
Jeff,
I have patients who have lost insurance come to me for screening colonoscopies and ask how much out of pocket this is going to be for them. I have to tell them that honestly, I don't know. And I'm the guy doing them, and through some circuitous method, getting paid at the end of the month! You hit the nail square on the head.

I had a paper published this year evaluating a new laparoscopic approach to colon cancer. A nice part of the paper was to be the cost-effectiveness of the procedure, as it had the potential to save thousands of dollars per procedure, and more importantly, save labor resources. When I approached the billing office to gather cost data, they could not give me a straight number of what certain items cost! "it depends on who's paying, what insurance, their tax status....oh, then there's what WE charge, what the stuff costs us....." on and on! I left there with my head spinning, wondering how in the HELL would an elderly couple with medicare, medicare gap, etc...figure out how the hell to pay their bills???

And for free-markets to work, there has to be a choice. Most people, I would hazard to guess, are locked into some type of network of hospitals or physicians, and really have no "choice" in a usual sense of the word.

It's so darned complex, I'm surprised a 2000 page bill even begins to approach the issue!

luvalab
12-20-2009, 07:54 AM
Until we are ready for a single-payer plan--perhaps one in which the companies that are now insurance companies are payed fairly and well to be administration companies--then these are the debates and dilemmas we're going to be faced with, and there is simply no resolving them. There might be mitigation of damage (which I have no faith this bill will do, but anyway), but there are no solutions.

When will we be ready? I think (off-hand) we need three things: first, for people to accept the idea that sometimes, in order to best take care of ourselves, we also need to take care of others (EVERYONE in the insurance pool--hold your nose and 1,2,3 jump); and second, for people to have a government that they trust to pass SIMPLE legislation that hands over the reigns of control elsewhere; and third, a trustworthy corporate "elsewhere."

We're not ready. But I sure wish there were some politicians bold enough to make the argument.

Single-payer national insurance is one of the few lefty ideals I have left over in my middle age, and the more arguments I hear, the more I'm convinced it's the way to go...

Either that, or screw all regulation entirely, and every man, woman, and child for himself--and barter and trade if necessary. If you're going to scream free market--free the market. I'm sure everyone would know what things cost, and things would cost a hell of a lot less, and payment arrangements if necessary would be made that satisfied both private parties. I don't think we're ready for that, either--it will take a lot more than rhetoric to put the insurance genie back in the bottle.

YardleyLabs
12-20-2009, 08:02 AM
Until we are ready for a single-payer plan--perhaps one in which the companies that are now insurance companies are payed fairly and well to be administration companies--then these are the debates and dilemmas we're going to be faced with, and there is simply no resolving them. There might be mitigation of damage (which I have no faith this bill will do, but anyway), but there are no solutions.

When will we be ready? I think (off-hand) we need three things: first, for people to accept the idea that sometimes, in order to best take care of ourselves, we also need to take care of others (EVERYONE in the insurance pool--hold your nose and 1,2,3 jump); and second, for people to have a government that they trust to pass SIMPLE legislation that hands over the reigns of control elsewhere; and third, a trustworthy corporate "elsewhere."

We're not ready. But I sure wish there were some politicians bold enough to make the argument.

Single-payer national insurance is one of the few lefty ideals I have left over in my middle age, and the more arguments I hear, the more I'm convinced it's the way to go...

Either that, or screw all regulation entirely, and every man, woman, and child for himself--and barter and trade if necessary. If you're going to scream free market--free the market. I'm sure everyone would know what things cost, and things would cost a hell of a lot less, and payment arrangements if necessary would be made that satisfied both private parties. I don't think we're ready for that, either--it will take a lot more than rhetoric to put the insurance genie back in the bottle.
After eight years working in the public sector and 30 years working in the private sector, I trust no one to serve any interest but their own in the absence of competition. In the absence of competition, all organiations become inbred and arrogant.

luvalab
12-20-2009, 08:55 AM
After eight years working in the public sector and 30 years working in the private sector, I trust no one to serve any interest but their own in the absence of competition. In the absence of competition, all organiations become inbred and arrogant.

I don't think a single-payer system precludes competition.

YardleyLabs
12-20-2009, 08:59 AM
I don't think a single-payer system precludes competition.
Single-payer certainly sounds like just one to me. Having only one payer gives the payer complete control over providers and consumers. The result is likely to be arbitrary exclusions of some providers (or dictated reimbursement rates) and bad service for consumers.

luvalab
12-20-2009, 09:51 AM
In all the single-payer (single pool of money) proposals I've ever been familiar with, there were possibilities for competition by fund administrators (who can do it most effectively, who can do it most efficiently, who can do it most economically), competition by doctors (who can provide care most effectively, efficiently, economically), drug companies (same), equipment companies (same), and on and on.

Right now, the competition essentially about about who can make the most money for the least service--and without going to either a system that emphasizes competition in the areas that actually lead to better health (to my mind, single payer is a viable proposition), or going to a free-market system where layers of government and corporate greed codified in bueracracy and legislation are eliminated, I don't see what competition will get us.

dnf777
12-20-2009, 05:52 PM
Single-payer certainly sounds like just one to me. Having only one payer gives the payer complete control over providers and consumers. The result is likely to be arbitrary exclusions of some providers (or dictated reimbursement rates) and bad service for consumers.

Maybe not competition per se, but the net effect may be even worse for the consumer. Many physicians may go ahead and retire, those that can. Less bright college students will choose to enter medicine, and we will experience a brain-drain, like other wounded professions have. Lastly, and probably least, mid-career physicians may leave medicine for other pursuits. While I don't foresee this happening in significant numbers, there is a niche-industry that has sprung up recently that is dedicated in helping physicians find second careers. I think the mere existence of such industries is telling of a dismal future for American medicine if such trends continue.

So while single-payer may not provide competition, it may result in the physician pool drying up due to attrition.

JDogger
12-20-2009, 08:54 PM
Maybe not competition per se, but the net effect may be even worse for the consumer. Many physicians may go ahead and retire, those that can. Less bright college students will choose to enter medicine, and we will experience a brain-drain, like other wounded professions have. Lastly, and probably least, mid-career physicians may leave medicine for other pursuits. While I don't foresee this happening in significant numbers, there is a niche-industry that has sprung up recently that is dedicated in helping physicians find second careers. I think the mere existence of such industries is telling of a dismal future for American medicine if such trends continue.

So while single-payer may not provide competition, it may result in the physician pool drying up due to attrition.

dnf777,

What prompted your entrance into the practice of medicine? What keeps you there? Just curious.

JD

Hew
12-20-2009, 10:20 PM
dnf777,

What prompted your entrance into the practice of medicine? What keeps you there? Just curious.

JD
I've seen this episode before on a very special edition of "Blossom." This is the part where JDogger has forced DNF to remember that he got into medicine to help his fellow man; not make a comfortable living and repay his student loans. Then DNF says, "Gee, JDog, thanks for reminding me of what's really important!"

dnf777
12-21-2009, 04:26 AM
I've seen this episode before on a very special edition of "Blossom." This is the part where JDogger has forced DNF to remember that he got into medicine to help his fellow man; not make a comfortable living and repay his student loans. Then DNF says, "Gee, JDog, thanks for reminding me of what's really important!"

No, you got the wrong episode Hew. It's where some jack-%$$ know-it-all jumps in and answers questions that weren't even directed at him!

And yes, I'm proud of what I do. If you have a problem with that, and feel the need to ridicule for whatever reason, I feel sorry for you. Try to have a nice day.

JD, we can PM, where there's less childish distractions. ;-)

Hew
12-21-2009, 06:18 AM
No, you got the wrong episode Hew. It's where some jack-%$$ know-it-all jumps in and answers questions that weren't even directed at him!

And yes, I'm proud of what I do. If you have a problem with that, and feel the need to ridicule for whatever reason, I feel sorry for you. Try to have a nice day.

JD, we can PM, where there's less childish distractions. ;-)
:D:D:D Flinch much? It was sarcasm (or in your case, sarchasm) directed at JDog, who in his own special subtle-as-a-hammer way, was trying to say that doctors aren't in it for the money anyway so why should they care what the govt. decides to pay them. I guess his point eluded you, too.

Open up the cabinet and rummage around for something to take the edge off, doc. ;-)

luvalab
12-21-2009, 08:45 AM
I'd be curious to know where doctors' salaries rank here versus where doctors' salaries rank in some other countries--may try to find out. If anyone knows, please at least indicate a source if not cite one.

I don't think having a single-payer health system would preclude doctors being paid very well, or outstanding doctors being paid very, very, very well. In fact, I think it would be absolutely necessary.

As far as the level of student entering medicine--I understand that for the last 20 years it's been far more difficult to get into veterinary school than medical school. I would hope they'd at least be equally competitive... (no offense to the doctors on board--I'm a teacher, and our collective IQ ain't so hot--I'm just sayin')

Like I said, though--we're not ready for national health care, and I see no point in forcing it. I just wish it were part of the dialogue.

JDogger
12-21-2009, 10:31 AM
:D:D:D Flinch much? It was sarcasm (or in your case, sarchasm) directed at JDog, who in his own special subtle-as-a-hammer way, was trying to say that doctors aren't in it for the money anyway so why should they care what the govt. decides to pay them. I guess his point eluded you, too.

Open up the cabinet and rummage around for something to take the edge off, doc. ;-)


http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/bootyshake.gif Get the point?

unsubtle regards,
JDogger

Hew
12-21-2009, 11:55 AM
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/bootyshake.gif Get the point?

unsubtle regards,
JDogger
Got it. Thanks.

Spill the beans...how many pages was the PM you got from DNF explaining to you why he became a doctor, what he got on his MSATs, his favorite professors, the time Suzie Hassenfeffer puked during a cadaver disection and other zany med-school anecdotes? Did you let your new PM buddy down gently and explain that your "question" was actually you making the point that doctors are here to serve mankind and shouldn't be allowed to make too much money?

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 12:14 PM
I believe doctors shouldn't make any more then your average assembly line worker down at the broom factory.

JDogger
12-21-2009, 12:32 PM
Got it. Thanks.

Spill the beans...how many pages was the PM you got from DNF explaining to you why he became a doctor, what he got on his MSATs, his favorite professors, the time Suzie Hassenfeffer puked during a cadaver disection and other zany med-school anecdotes? Did you let your new PM buddy down gently and explain that your "question" was actually you making the point that doctors are here to serve mankind and shouldn't be allowed to make too much money?

None. Other than Chris, Vicky, and another guy here in NM, my inbox is filled with messages from the right-wing fringe element here on PP. Even a couple from you. The latest is a question about ice-fishing :confused: from RK. He never responded to my last reply.:-(

Nothing from the more measured, thoughtful element, except one from Henry, and I remember one from Joe S. a long time ago. Probably my fault.;-)

I imagine the motivation to enter medicine is as widely varied as with other professions. Don't you?

My question was specific to Dave. He chose not to respond. I don't care enough to bug him about it.

JDogger
12-21-2009, 12:44 PM
I believe doctors shouldn't make any more then your average assembly line worker down at the broom factory.


Are you a socialist? Or, is that just your way of saying you'd like to be paid better?:rolleyes:

JD

smillerdvm
12-21-2009, 12:50 PM
I've seen this episode before on a very special edition of "Blossom." This is the part where JDogger has forced DNF to remember that he got into medicine to help his fellow man; not make a comfortable living and repay his student loans. Then DNF says, "Gee, JDog, thanks for reminding me of what's really important!"

Hew:
Glad to see you still have the same amount of class as the last time I visited this wasteland called POTUS

dnf777
12-21-2009, 01:53 PM
Got it. Thanks.

Spill the beans...how many pages was the PM you got from DNF explaining to you why he became a doctor, what he got on his MSATs, his favorite professors, the time Suzie Hassenfeffer puked during a cadaver disection and other zany med-school anecdotes? Did you let your new PM buddy down gently and explain that your "question" was actually you making the point that doctors are here to serve mankind and shouldn't be allowed to make too much money?


I did not mean to snub JD at all. I just figured Hew would (and he did) answer for everyone else, since he seems to be all-knowing.

I do know that I started working in oil refineries in Baytown in highschool, never dreaming of going to medical school. After my first daughter was born and I started paying attention to night classes and my grades improved, I started to get a crazy idea. Thankfully, I had parents who encouraged me to pursue my goals, no matter how crazy they were.

If money were the prime motivator, I would have a JD or MBA right now, and been working and earning a living for the past 15 years, instead of school and residency and fellowships, that have just allowed me to hold a real job since 2007. Who knows, I might even have some orange ribbons hanging around here somewhere by now? From the general tone of some of these posts I doubt those authors will understand this, but there is something very gratifying about helping people in their times of need. It is a privelage I cherish. Would I still do it if I got paid the same as Hoosier's factory worker? Depends on if they're union or not. ;-)

Hoosier, careful what you eat. It sounds like you've taken a bite of Hew's sandwich.

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 01:56 PM
Are you a socialist? Or, is that just your way of saying you'd like to be paid better?:rolleyes:

JD

I'm doing just fine JDog, and didn't even need to have the federal government to make things fair for me.

Did I forget to add the rolleyes after my last post?