Should doctors in the US really be making up to a million a year??

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: ohnoes

Wow, you are pretty dense. By your argument, the earnings potential of dropping out of college or HS bill gates style exceeds MBA & Dr. Nice!

I mean since we're narrowing the dataset down, we might as well go all the way.

No, you just have a hard time admitting you're wrong. Anyone that judges a career's earnings potential by the starting salary is dense, ignorant, and simply foolish. I mean, that's just a flat out stupid argument to even try to make.

The purpose of business school is to learn how to run a business. Clearly, running a business has the highest earnings potential of all careers. Your Bill Gates analogy actually fits well enough, he didn't graduate business school, but he's doing the job of one who does. You can't apply the same argument to law/medicine because you need a license to do those things. Were it not, yea, I'm sure you could find the same.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Why shouldn't you be able to price your services if people are willing to pay for those services?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Deeko

And I will say again - I would hope that I have a higher chance of surviving in a car than in a hospital :roll:

Yeah, you keep repeating that and you're just proving your density more than anything I can say. Thanks for saving me the typing.

In other words, you have nothing to say. I'll take that as you finally admitting you're wrong.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: JS80
Doctors do indeed have a monopoly in practicing medicine in this country.

Lawyers have a monopoly on practicing law in this country. Are they a monopoly too?

There is no monopoly because doctors are individual entities. They are not some conglomerate that work out overall prices with one another.

There might be a monopoly in the way that the AMA runs med schools, but that's not doctors. Plus, you can always go for D.O. degree, which isn't granted via the AMA.

Law doesn't have pricing problem because they accept anyone who is willing to pay to become a lawyer. The AMA purposefully keeps the supply of doctors low to preserve their profession through their med school shenanigans. That's an effective monopoly. That is unconscionable for a profession that is supposed to save lives. They are not even pretending to try to keep up with population and demand. AMA = doctors.

And who the hell respects DOs?

You do apparently, because if there were more med schools those DOs would be MDs

TOUCHE
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Deeko

And I will say again - I would hope that I have a higher chance of surviving in a car than in a hospital :roll:

Yeah, you keep repeating that and you're just proving your density more than anything I can say. Thanks for saving me the typing.

In other words, you have nothing to say. I'll take that as you finally admitting you're wrong.

Sure, you do that and give everyone yet another example of your brilliant reading comprehension skills.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Locut0s
In most countries that have universal health care, like here in Canada, doctors do pretty dam well. I can tell you my family doctor is pretty well off. And specialists do even better. But it's true that they don't make as much as their counterparts in the US. Though it's true that they have higher expenses in the US. I was looking at this survey of US salaries for physicians:

http://www.allied-physicians.c...physician-salaries.htm

I'm stunned at the MAX salaries column. Up to 1,300,000! I know expenses are higher in the US but still!!

Note: I'm not arguing that doctors salaries should be drastically cut to save expenses. I'm just shocked at how high these numbers are. The real solution would be in eliminating the entire medical private insurance industry (or almost so). But that's sadly not on the table.

Originally posted by: Deeko
-snip-
The purpose of business school is to learn how to run a business. Clearly, running a business has the highest earnings potential of all careers. Your Bill Gates analogy actually fits well enough, he didn't graduate business school, but he's doing the job of one who does. You can't apply the same argument to law/medicine because you need a license to do those things. Were it not, yea, I'm sure you could find the same.

(Apologies if I've misundstood your point Deeko, but your post fits in somewhat with my response to the OP. EDIT: To be clearer, I'm saying that just because you have a license doesn't mean you can be analogized to any other bussinessperson)

A licenced profession mostly just means there is a "barrier to entry", something that deals with the issue of "compettition" (A requirement for a license, similar to high capital requirements to enter a bussiness, means a limited amount of competitors can/will enter you industry - thus limited competition). Some with licenses are employees, others are self-employed and still others are businesspersons - much like those graduating with MBA's.

Many in professions - law, medicine, accounting, engineering ARE more 'businesspersons' than professionals.

The accountants/CPA's who sit at the top of large accounting forms are more concerned with running that business (marketing, HR, legal issues etc) and do NO professional type of work (audits or tax returns for example).

Likewsise some of the physicians making these huge bucks may be at the top of, and running, a medical practice company.

In other words, without a lot more info about these 'super earners' in the medical field it's not advisable to draw any conclusions about their pay. Their compensation may not really be related to practice medicine per se, it may be more for management or ownership (high % ownership of profits in a medical practice P-ship or LLC).

Fern
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
To be licensed you have to pass a rigorous exam. One can increase the number of professionals by lowering the standards.

There could be two tiers. One for JS80 and one for the rest of us.
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,426
2
81
I'd say yes. They put many more years and hard work into school than most other people so they deserve to get paid well. Med school isn't cheap, MCATs, ridiculous hours when on call, and always having the possibility of getting sued for malpractice - they deserve everything they can get.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Locut0s
In most countries that have universal health care, like here in Canada, doctors do pretty dam well. I can tell you my family doctor is pretty well off. And specialists do even better. But it's true that they don't make as much as their counterparts in the US. Though it's true that they have higher expenses in the US. I was looking at this survey of US salaries for physicians:

http://www.allied-physicians.c...physician-salaries.htm

I'm stunned at the MAX salaries column. Up to 1,300,000! I know expenses are higher in the US but still!!

Note: I'm not arguing that doctors salaries should be drastically cut to save expenses. I'm just shocked at how high these numbers are. The real solution would be in eliminating the entire medical private insurance industry (or almost so). But that's sadly not on the table.

It's a free country, so if you dislike doctors who make a lot of money then you should become a patient of a less skilled doctor who makes less. Or become a doctor yourself and donate your services pro bono. Problem solved.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And we see the level of respect that soldiers get from liberals...

Get some new material please. One would think that sending troops to be blown apart in another country that posed no threat to us would not be considered "showing them respect." Why did Bush hate the troops?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said any such thing. I think all of our bases around the world should be shut down and our soldiers put to work defending the US, not assaulting other nations.

But do liberals really want our health care system to look like our military? An organization they seem to despise?

What words am I putting in your mouth, you twice repeated that liberals either have no respect for our troops and that liberals despise the military, so again, get some new material.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

What does the fact that Bush and the Republicans don't respect our military change about the fact that neither do the Democrats?

My material is fine, it's just way over your head Bicycle Helmet Boy.
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
I'm really not convinced that more doctors would lower prices. In fact, areas with more physicians tend to have higher health expenditures. If more physicians per capita increases competition, shouldn't these areas (e.g. MA) have lower health costs that areas with fewer physicians per capita? It is amazing to see the discrepancy on the amount spent per Medicare patient in places like the Northeast (where there are many physicians per capita) and places like Idaho and Wyoming. Age-adjusted per capita spending on Medicare patients varies by 2 to 3 times depending where you live.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: ohnoes

Wow, you are pretty dense. By your argument, the earnings potential of dropping out of college or HS bill gates style exceeds MBA & Dr. Nice!

I mean since we're narrowing the dataset down, we might as well go all the way.

No, you just have a hard time admitting you're wrong. Anyone that judges a career's earnings potential by the starting salary is dense, ignorant, and simply foolish. I mean, that's just a flat out stupid argument to even try to make.

The purpose of business school is to learn how to run a business. Clearly, running a business has the highest earnings potential of all careers. Your Bill Gates analogy actually fits well enough, he didn't graduate business school, but he's doing the job of one who does. You can't apply the same argument to law/medicine because you need a license to do those things. Were it not, yea, I'm sure you could find the same.

you need to look into the % of people going to bschool to run a business. Its tiny. Most people go to bschool to become middle managers.

Your point just proves that you don't need an MBA to run a business. Dr's have the same potential to start up and run a business as someone who goes to or doesn't go to bschool. Hence, they have the same earnings potential as bschool students if they somehow strike it rich with an idea & start up their own company. In other words, if you have a brilliant motherf*cking idea or are extremely capable, your earnings potential is not defined by either your MD or MBA.

Of course, the argument here isn't about the brilliant 1% of the med school or bschool population. It's about the earnings potential for the remaining 99% of students. In which case, yes, starting salary matters quite a bit.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Originally posted by: LostUte
I'm really not convinced that more doctors would lower prices. In fact, areas with more physicians tend to have higher health expenditures. If more physicians per capita increases competition, shouldn't these areas (e.g. MA) have lower health costs that areas with fewer physicians per capita? It is amazing to see the discrepancy on the amount spent per Medicare patient in places like the Northeast (where there are many physicians per capita) and places like Idaho and Wyoming. Age-adjusted per capita spending on Medicare patients varies by 2 to 3 times depending where you live.

Not familiar w/ the stats, but cost of living could account for the differences. You'd have to compare major cities to other major cities for a more apt comparison.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'd say yes. They put many more years and hard work into school than most other people so they deserve to get paid well. Med school isn't cheap, MCATs, ridiculous hours when on call, and always having the possibility of getting sued for malpractice - they deserve everything they can get.

Lawyers & bschool grads work just as hard, and generally don't get paid as much as Dr's. If school costs, bar/gmat exams, and long hours are the rationales for making $$$, then they should also be making $200K. But they're not...
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should children die in this world because they can't afford to pay the money million dollar doctors get?

The answer to million dollar doctors is grinding out doctors by the millions in doctor mills with education paid for by the government and job security for life in government hospitals run like the military.

And we see the level of respect that soldiers get from liberals...

Are you going to spit on your doctor too?

Republican's respect soldiers by sendingDe them to their death in an illicit war.
Rubberstamped by the Democrats

In a Republican majority Congress...Democrats couldn't have stopped it if they tried. It is sort like what the Republican's are bitching about now for any piece of legislation that passes through Congress.

But...they DIDN'T try, they went along merrily.



Should doctors in the US really be making up to a million a year??

Hellfuckinyea they should.
 

Via

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2009
4,695
4
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Should doctors in the US really be making up to a million a year??

If people are willing to pay for it, yes. If not, they won't.

This post stopped me dead in my tracks.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Why not. Look at all the idiots in Sports making 6 times as much. I'd rather give money to an educated person that has my life in his/her hands then on some idiot that can catch a ball or shoot a basket.

Should sports players be making that kinda dough?
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
11,938
538
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And we see the level of respect that soldiers get from liberals...

Get some new material please. One would think that sending troops to be blown apart in another country that posed no threat to us would not be considered "showing them respect." Why did Bush hate the troops?

lol. owned
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,690
2,148
126
Originally posted by: evident
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And we see the level of respect that soldiers get from liberals...

Get some new material please. One would think that sending troops to be blown apart in another country that posed no threat to us would not be considered "showing them respect." Why did Bush hate the troops?

lol. owned

He already responded to that douchebag. Neither Party supports the military.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Please, malpractice insurance is as much of a scam on the doctors as health insurance is on us plebes. All docs need to do to protect themselves from those evil trial lawyers is not screw up.
That's a pretty simplistic view. Nobody makes mistakes? Have you ever made any?

Whether it's a scam or not is of no consequence. It's a necessity in the litigious society in which we live.

You're going to have to do far better than that.

Sure people make mistakes. And they pay for them. I don't call malpractice insurance a scam because it isn't necessity, I call it a scam from how it rakes even good docs over the coals. It's kind of funny how all these problems have one common contributing denominator- insurance.
So then you are of the school of thought that if a Software Engineer writes code that has a bug in it, which results in deaths, they should be PERSONALLY sued for as much as doctors are in mapractice cases?

If the developer is an individual contractor, and is paid per "job" (like most doctors are), then yes. Because they're putting their stamp of approval on it, and "sold" the product.

If the developer is a salaried employee for a company (or a sub-contractor hired by the company), then it is the company who should be sued, because they put their stamp of approval on it, and "sold" the product.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Praxis1452
The AMA and other licensing organizations are a part of the huge healthcare costs. Because you absolutely have to be licensed to get a job as a doctor, the AMA and other associations work to limit the number of new doctors. In this way they can keep the supply of doctors low enough to force a higher salary while at the same time decreasing overall medical care.

David Friedman: "Of all the craft unions that exploit licensing, the most important is the American Medical Association, which is not usually considered a union at all. Physicians are licensed by the states, and the state licensing boards are effectively controlled by the AMA. That is hardly surprising; if you were a state legislator, whom could you find more qualified to license physicians than other physicians? But it is in the interest of physicians to keep down the number of physicians for exactly the same reason that it is in the interest of plumbers to keep down the number of plumbers; the law of supply and demand drives up wages. Physicians justify restricting the number of physicians, to others and doubtless to themselves as well, on the grounds of keeping up quality. Even if that were really what they were doing, the argument involves a fundamental error. Refusing to license the less qualified 50 percent of physicians may raise the average quality of physicians but it lowers
the average quality of medical care. It does not mean that everyone gets better medical care but that half the people get no care or that everyone gets half as much.
Some of the restrictions the AMA has advocated, such as requiring applicants for medical licensing to be citizens and to take their licensing examinations in English, have a very dubious relationship to quality. They look more like an attempt to prevent immigrants from competing with American doctors. It is interesting to note that during the five years after 1933 the same number of physicians trained abroad were admitted to practice in this country, as during the previous five years, despite the large numbers of professional people fleeing here from Germany and Austria during that period. This is striking evidence of the power of organized medicine to limit entry to its profession. How does the AMA control the number of doctors? Refusing to license doctors after they are trained would create a great deal of hostility among those rejected; that would be politically expensive.
Instead, it relies mainly on the medical schools. In order to be licensed, an applicant must be a graduate of an approved medical school; the states get their list of approved schools from the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AM A. For a medical school, removal from the list means ruin. In the 1930s, when doctors, like everyone else, were suffering the effects of the Great Depression, the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals wrote the medical schools, complaining that they were admitting more students than they could train properly. In the next two years, every school reduced the number it was admitting. Since then the AMA has become less obvious in its methods, but the logic of the situation has not changed."

From "The Machinery of Freedom"

What should happen to those lower 50 percent is that they get to become nurse practitioners.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Just a few thoughts, not sure if they hav been mentioned already:

1. The healthcare system as it is now rewards "procedures" . Doctors with specialties that can perform and bill for these tests make lots of money (surgeons, cardiology, GI, etc...). Seeing patients doesn't make money, billing procedures that you can do (or read, like for radiology) is where the money is. So FP docs get screwed.

2. I don't think you can comment on whether or not a doctor can make a million a year in a vacuum. I would complain about all these idiot pro athletes making $10mil+ per year with $100mil guaranteed contracts before doctors. Of course, I would also complain loudly about all those huge CEO salaries (plus golden parachutes, free jets, etc....). CEO don't make amistake and get sued like doctors, they just get a big golden parachute and move on.
 

bobcpg

Senior member
Nov 14, 2001
951
0
0
Originally posted by: KB
Doctors have to get years of expensive schooling and deal with expensive insurance costs. This is a case of supply and demand where there is great demand for doctors but not a large supply. We can also ask should football players be paid so much?

Problem here is that I can choose to watch/buy-into football. I cant choose if I need life saving spine surgery.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: KB
Doctors have to get years of expensive schooling and deal with expensive insurance costs. This is a case of supply and demand where there is great demand for doctors but not a large supply. We can also ask should football players be paid so much?

Well the insurance costs could be solved by tort reform. And I would say the cost for schools should fall under the public sector to some degree too.

Yet sadly, the libs in Congress don't give a rat's ass about tort reform, thanks to their relationship with trial lawyers.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |