Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: Further discussion about Health Care as a "Right"

  1. #41
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]And what do these Scandanavian countries have, 16 million residents or so?[/QUOTE]

    Plus their Scandanavian they don't actually need health care.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Only a liberal would think that way...why do you know better what everyone wnats or needs than the individual themselves? And, if they can afford it and want to pay for it, why do you begrudge them?

    Who are you to decide what is medically necessary or emergent?


    [QUOTE][B]You cant be serious, right? You are an MD , right? Are you honestly saying there is no difference between an emergent vs unemergent procedure? Your training should have taught you that. Think about all the unnecessary/wasteful tests that are ordered that are not medically necessary. Hey i admit, i am guilty of it at times. Does a surgeon need to order an INR for every elective surgery? Of course not-there is literature supporting not doing this for everyone. How about getting an MRI for every joint ache? I know lots of docs who take liberty with this. What about the patient who wants a stress test or colonoscopy or CT Scan when its not indicated? I know lots of docs who fudge the paperwork to get these tests done and paid for.

    I dont begrudge people WANTING these tests. Its just not always necessary from a medical point of view. [/B] [/QUOTE]

    Excuse me if I don't understand why you (or the government) get to decide what is necessary or uinnecessary in [b]my life[/b].

    [QUOTE][B]Because Physicians [I]do[/I] know better what is medically indicated and what is not. We also know how to medically triage patients and determine what is emergent and what is not alot better than the average layperson. [/B] [/QUOTE]

    If my knee hurts, and it is affecting my job and life, why should I wait until you, or somone that thinks like you, decides that an MRI is necessary...just so that I can get on the 'list' to get my non-emergent knee scope 9-12 months from now?

    [QUOTE][B]Again you are an MD , right?? When is an [U]emergent[/U] MRI indicated for chronic knee pain??? If you want non-emergent treatments treated as aemergent, then you need to pay up . As i said, im all for a universal healthcare system where if you can afford , have the option to buy private insurance. This is very similar to the system in the scandenavian countries.[/B][/QUOTE]



    Except that as soon as you do that, everyone on the federal program will run and scream to get the government to provide what everyone else is working to afford...it's what led to the mess in the US in the first place.

    We have universal health care right now...go ahead, don't shave or shower for 4 days and then pretend you are homeless and broke, make up a name and go to an ER complaining of abdominal pain or the worst headache of your life....tell them you have no insurance, and no means to pay...I bet you get seen.

    [QUOTE][B]Yes you may get seen. But say you have CML and go to Sloan Kettering for treatment w/o insurance (cause hey they provide the best cancer care anywhere), they will laugh at you and show you the door. Also suppose you have no insurance but make enough to disqualify you from getting medicaid, how are you going to afford the treatment and follow up care??? Gleevec alone costs $3000-$4000/month. Your screwed if you dont have coverage.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Half of the people without medical insurance are that way [b]by choice[/b], taking the extra cash from the employer instead...most (I said most) of the others who are truly poor are too lazy to go to the government office and sign up for Medicaid. Hell, here in MO kids qualify for medicaid even if the parents make up to 3X the poverty level (about $50K/yr)...and for an average young adult, a catastrophic policy would cost less than the cost of cigarettes or booze for a year



    Because people make bad choices in life shouldn't screw the system for the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE][B]By choice? I dont think so. When your salary is barely sufficient to pay for the rent and food for you and your kids, being offered to pay a % of your salary for health insurance does not leave you with much choice if your barely making ends meet.[/B][/QUOTE].

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Okay, so who created these restrictions? Also, how much do MDs in Canada get paid, relative to MDs in America?[/QUOTE]

    A GP in Canada can make 125-200K/year.
    Very similar to that in the USA.
    The differences lie in the subspecialties where American Subspecialists can earn much more than a canadian.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Plus their Scandanavian they don't actually need health care.[/QUOTE]

    :D

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,935
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]By choice? I dont think so. When your salary is barely sufficient to pay for the rent and food for you and your kids, being offered to pay a % of your salary for health insurance does not leave you with much choice if your barely making ends meet.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. My wife and kids are insured...but I am not, it would cost to much to include me. I have a choice between my mortgage payment and health insurance...so I cross my fingers and hope I don't get hurt.


    Green...what about a universal health care program that handles ER visits only. I broke my wrist a few years ago and sadly, Mr ER doctor was the only one who got screwed on that. I definitely couldn't of elected NOT to have my broken wrist fixed, I kinda need it to work and stuff like that. But I also definitely couldn't afford to pay to have it fixed. My ER doctor got "plumbered"...which sucks because he was actually an excellent physician.

    Now, the govt definitely benefits from a taxpayer such as myself having both arms to work with. I definitely generate more income for them with two working wrists....is this feasible?

  6. #46
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]A GP in Canada can make 125-200K/year.
    Very similar to that in the USA.
    The differences lie in the subspecialties where American Subspecialists can earn much more than a canadian.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks. So, why can American subspecialists earn more than their Canadian counterparts?

    Also, who created the restrictions in Canada...I am unclear on that. I suspect the Canadian government did. Did they?

  7. #47
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,117
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Green, I have said all along that I don't think socialized medicine could work in a country with over three hundred million people, and I have never said there isn't anything wrong with our system

    And I would think that I have been pretty open to listening to your suggestions, since you are a doctor and I am a seminary student. I think I have given you the respect in your knowledge, and have asked for that knowledge. [/quote]

    True. I wasn't intending to be insulting with my comment..I apologize if it sounded that way...I was just expressing surprise to hear your post. You summarized all of the things I believe would happen with a socialized health care system in the US.

    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Canada will not give up its universal health care. Not anytime soon, because it is part of being Canadian, just like Capitalism is apart of the United States. However, I am not naive in my thinking that there are not flaws in how we execute it. I have been raised in this system to believe that everyone gets the health care (eventually) they should get. But I also see that with almost one in every ten tax dollars going toward a "sick-care" system, this is going to either end in no system at all, or one that is going to get too expensive for us to afford. [/quote]

    If Canada won't give up universal health care (your variation of it anyway), then Canadians need to be aware that the situation is NOT going to improve any time soon, if ever.

    What I am perplexed by is that you SEE the problem, but refuse to acknowledge the solution...which is to release private enterprise to run a system in the best interests of the people (yup...you guessed, capitalism).

    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]That is why I want to listen to people like yourself who are outside the system and can give suggestions as to how to improve it. But this is where we run into problems, for when you live outside of the U.S. (in many cases), we don't believe that unrestricted capitalism is the way to go. That privatization of everything is not the way to go. While it has its positives, it also has its negatives, and is not the way for everyone to have to live. If it works for the U.S., great...but there are societies, cultures, countries that do not want to embrace this philosophy.[/quote]

    Then, you are going to have to settle for mediocrity in service, quality and pay through the nose for it.

    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]So, back to your comment. I am all ears for listening and learning about how the U.S. runs their medical system, and I firmly believe there is a way to ensure that people can get the health care they need without having to mortgage their homes to get it, while doctors can earn their fees for the important work they provide for society...[/QUOTE]

    Listen to all the answers given above, and think of why they occurred:

    1. Not enough physicians

    Of course there aren't....the number of people that want to learn an esteemable and valuable trade is of course going to be less when they realize that they have no autonomy or control over their income or their life. Throw in the fact as I have stated numerous times in this thread that after training Canadian Physicians leave for the US...why is that? The answer is obvious.

    Then, there is part two of this answer, which begins with another question...is there really a shortage of physicians in Canada? Or is there no impetus to work?

    While I am not certain, I would bet serious money that physicians in Canada work significantly less hours than private physicians here in the US...I would wager up to 50% less hours/week or time period. I've seen studies that suggest that the average Canadian physician works 40-50 hours/week which is far less than the average American private practice physician. Just increasing the work hours by 50% would increase physician supply by the same amount...it would cost more, but that's the rub. People are not motivated to work if they are not being adequately compensated, and really, why should they?

    And, I'd like to address this particular point you made above:

    [QUOTE]and I firmly believe there is a way to ensure that people can get the health care they need without having to mortgage their homes to get it, while doctors can earn their fees for the important work they provide for society[/QUOTE]

    Let's dissect it...

    You say that people NEED healthcare, and I agree. To say someone NEEDS something (not WANTS something) means that it should have a pretty high value placed on it, correct? Shouldn't it surpass all other WANTS in life?

    OK, now onto the next part...[b]but they shouldn't have to mortgage their house to get it[/b]. Hmmm.....they own a house? How did they buy that house, I mean, they must have assets, right? Is owning a house a requirement for life? Can't they rent? Why should their house be 'protected', but my rights to earn a living be 'infringed'? Should they have to sell their TV's? Cars? Disconnect cableTV? Or, are all those things 'protected' too? Where does it end, and who decides? Part of me is being facetious, but only to a certain extent.

    If society as a whole NEEDS healthcare, then society should go out of it's way to ensure that the supply of healthcare is not artificially restricted...it only makes sense. Why would you want anyone, government included, to control something you NEED...and then on top of it all, let it place restrictions on it's availability by controlling expenditures? What sense does that make?

    If you are a seminary student, then I would hope that you would believe that the best way for the maximum number of people to benefit from any healthcare system would be to unshackle it and let it grow....and then trust in the goodness of the human soul to ensure that the lesser among us also participate..it's called 'charity', which as I said used to be prevalent here in the US until the government got involved in health care (not to mention the lawyers, but that for another thread...providing free health care is one thing, but to do it ands still have to assume the legal liability for it absolutely sucks).

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Exactly. My wife and kids are insured...but I am not, it would cost to much to include me. I have a choice between my mortgage payment and health insurance...so I cross my fingers and hope I don't get hurt.


    Green...what about a universal health care program that handles ER visits only. I broke my wrist a few years ago and sadly, Mr ER doctor was the only one who got screwed on that. I definitely couldn't of elected NOT to have my broken wrist fixed, I kinda need it to work and stuff like that. But I also definitely couldn't afford to pay to have it fixed. My ER doctor got "plumbered"...which sucks because he was actually an excellent physician.

    Now, the govt definitely benefits from a taxpayer such as myself having both arms to work with. I definitely generate more income for them with two working wrists....is this feasible?[/QUOTE]

    Plumber, aren't you self-employed?

    BTW - You choose to have that mortgage payment and that house. Surely you could live in a smaller house or in a different (i.e. cheaper neighborhood) and afford health insurance. You do choose to have the lifestyle you have. What you want is health insurance without making any sacrifices in terms of your current lifestyle. You could work two jobs, you could take a job where they offered benefits. There are tons of things you could do.

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Thanks. So, why can American subspecialists earn more than their Canadian counterparts?

    Also, who created the restrictions in Canada...I am unclear on that. I suspect the Canadian government did. Did they?[/QUOTE]
    Not sure [I]how[/I] salaries are set in Canada. I suppose the government dis as it does with federal employees here. Working at the VA i am set a salary determined by the government.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Not sure [I]how[/I] salaries are set in Canada. I suppose the government dis as it does with federal employees here. Working at the VA i am set a salary determined by the government.[/QUOTE]


    Okay, fair enough. How about your anecdotal evidence for now? Do you earn less or more than MDs with your skills who are practicing privately in the US? Just a rough guess of your government-mandated salary versus your private peers....

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Plumber, aren't you self-employed?

    BTW - You choose to have that mortgage payment and that house. Surely you could live in a smaller house or in a different (i.e. cheaper neighborhood) and afford health insurance. You do choose to have the lifestyle you have. What you want is health insurance without making any sacrifices in terms of your current lifestyle. You could work two jobs, you could take a job where they offered benefits. There are tons of things you could do.[/QUOTE]

    Sure he could also work 5 jobs, ask his wife to work 3 jobs, live in a tent in the woods, have his kids hunt/fish all day for food instead of buying it, walk to work, eat only once a day etc . There are tons of things he could do.

    Why not have everyone make a small sacrifice to provide health care for the entire nation. Afterall, we are asked to make sacrifices to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and for expensive defense systems that we are unlikely to need

  12. #52
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=kennyo7].[/QUOTE]
    Of course there are differences between urgent and non-urgent procedures. I am sure also that Greenwave knows that. His posts on various topics in medicine have been very eloquent. No need for the condescending tone of your response.

    That being said, yes, knee replacement for example is not an "urgent" procedure. However, it does impact on lifestyle and productivity. It also can lead to potential "emergent" health consequences. To say it is not If your knee hurts, you become less active. You gain weight, and are at greater risk for developing medical problems such as diabetes and coronary disease. As one who takes care of "active" patients, it is important to "get back in the game" as quickly as possible to maintain your health and productivity. That is the good thing about American medicine. If you need a knee replacement, you can find someone who will fit you in relatively quickly. To delay these procedures may be "short sighted" in the long run, with loss of productivity and increased morbidity. Like a bypass is not always an "urgent" procedure, however there have been people on the waiting list have suffered fatal coronaries before their number came up to hit the OR table.

    You are correct when you say that many studies are ordered unnecessarily. Alot of this is due to "defensive medicine", a consequence of the medico-legal environment.
    Hopefully tort reform can fix this, but at this point unfortunately a generation of doctors have been trained to be "on the defense".

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Okay, fair enough. How about your anecdotal evidence for now? Do you earn less or more than MDs with your skills who are practicing privately in the US? Just a rough guess of your government-mandated salary versus your private peers....[/QUOTE]

    I earn less. But have other perks that they dont. Whats your point?
    I earn roughly $170,000. My friend in the exact same field earns close to $500,000 in the private sector. I work 5 days/week roughly 50hours/week. He works 6 days / week closer to 80 hrs/week.

  14. #54
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,935
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Plumber, aren't you self-employed?

    BTW - You choose to have that mortgage payment and that house. Surely you could live in a smaller house or in a different (i.e. cheaper neighborhood) and afford health insurance. You do choose to have the lifestyle you have. What you want is health insurance without making any sacrifices in terms of your current lifestyle. You could work two jobs, you could take a job where they offered benefits. There are tons of things you could do.[/QUOTE]


    Dude...I live in Western NY. I don't think I can live much cheaper than I already do. :D

    Self employed? Not anymore brother. We had to close our business because of getting royally screwed by Toll Brothers, go figure :rolleyes:


    Work two jobs?! ROTFLMAO....yeah, right. Cmon...Im just a lazy American that b*tches about stuff. Im not gonna really do anything to change it.... :yes:

    The guy who's apartment complex I run is in the process of setting something up for me. He is CEO of a company up here that handles housing for assisted living people all over the country...so I'm sure he has the right connections to hook a brother up.


    Am I right or wrong for assuming that ER visits are probably where the medical community gets screwed out of most of their money?
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 06-26-2007 at 04:40 PM.

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Of course there are differences between urgent and non-urgent procedures. I am sure also that Greenwave knows that. His posts on various topics in medicine have been very eloquent. No need for the condescending tone of your response.

    That being said, yes, knee replacement for example is not an "urgent" procedure. However, it does impact on lifestyle and productivity. It also can lead to potential "emergent" health consequences. To say it is not If your knee hurts, you become less active. You gain weight, and are at greater risk for developing medical problems such as diabetes and coronary disease. As one who takes care of "active" patients, it is important to "get back in the game" as quickly as possible to maintain your health and productivity. That is the good thing about American medicine. If you need a knee replacement, you can find someone who will fit you in relatively quickly. To delay these procedures may be "short sighted" in the long run, with loss of productivity and increased morbidity. Like a bypass is not always an "urgent" procedure, however there have been people on the waiting list have suffered fatal coronaries before their number came up to hit the OR table.

    You are correct when you say that many studies are ordered unnecessarily. Alot of this is due to "defensive medicine", a consequence of the medico-legal environment.
    Hopefully tort reform can fix this, but at this point unfortunately a generation of doctors have been trained to be "on the defense".[/QUOTE]

    I dont think im being condescending at all.. Sorry if you misperceived that.

    You say
    [QUOTE]If you need a knee replacement, you can find someone who will fit you in relatively quickly.[/QUOTE]
    Thats true if you have insurance. Otherwise you are waiting.

  16. #56
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,117
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]By choice? I dont think so. When your salary is barely sufficient to pay for the rent and food for you and your kids, being offered to pay a % of your salary for health insurance does not leave you with much choice if your barely making ends meet. [/QUOTE]

    Unless they're working the same number of hours I am, I don't want to hear it. NO one is guaranteed a 40 hour work week.

    Funny how a lot of these people 'without means' still live in a house (own or rent), drive a car (or two), have AC, cable TV, internet access, smoke, drink, go on vacation, out to eat...yet never have enough to afford health insurance. Most work one job too.

    There are some truly destitute people out there...but they aren't the majority by any means. I'm all for helping out the truly unfortunate...but your plan (and the government's plan) to help out the truly unfortunate for some reason always seems to also encompass the people that aren't unfortunate, but rather genuinely lazy who continue to make poor choices in life.

  17. #57
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,935
    [IMG]http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/6116XA4C7TL._SS500_.jpg[/IMG]

    Oh...now I see it. In the second to last sentence. Roughly translated from Greek it says [B]"and to ye who hath no insurance but posseseth a home or horseless carriage, damn ye to the depths of Hades. Thy jerkine attitude be damned, payeth what is owed so that I may maketh my Hair Club for Men payment. Insurance companies be blessed with the blessing of the gods, thy uninsured get upeth off ye lazy arses and work twine jobeths..."[/B]


    Don't get all crazy on me...its a joke ;)

  18. #58
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Sure he could also work 5 jobs, ask his wife to work 3 jobs, live in a tent in the woods, have his kids hunt/fish all day for food instead of buying it, walk to work, eat only once a day etc . There are tons of things he could do.

    Why not have everyone make a small sacrifice to provide health care for the entire nation. Afterall, we are asked to make sacrifices to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and for expensive defense systems that we are unlikely to need[/QUOTE]
    I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have to do those things. Nice ridiculous, emotional, transparently argumentative example.

    Show me a "small" sacrifice and I'll evaluate it. "Healthcare" is not a constant thing, it is a service with varying degrees of quality, efficiency and effectiveness. I want control over my healthcare choices and how my healthcare money is spent, I do not want to completely cede that control to government workers, thank you very much. We all make "large" sacrifices to provide education to everyone and in theory and according to your logic, there's no problem with our education system because everyone has "access" to "education." However, what we see in reality is that education is not a constant term...it is a service with varying degrees of quality, efficiency and effectiveness depending on a number of factors. The problem is that many people have no control over their education...sure, they can move or work two jobs to pay for private school, but according to you, that is unacceptable. They cannot fire their teachers or school and simply choose another provder. Yet you see all of these problems in education, which is a government monopoly...(especially problems for the poorest among us) and yet your solution to the healthcare issue is to turn it over to the government so they can what, hit a homerun like they have with education?? A very large part of the problem currently with our healthcare system is due to government meddling! Why do you think cable companies act the way they do? It's because they can, because the government has allowed them to operate in geographic monopolies. Comcast does whatever it wants to me because I can't fire them and hire the cable company down the street and they know it.

    I have no doubt that some Kennyo-type generations ago made an emotional, self-righteous statement about how education was a "right" and tried to wave a wand, as if the force of that conviction could counter the harsh reality that education (like all services, including healthcare) is a scarce resource that has real costs. I get labelled as insensitive because I point this out. Scarce resources have to be rationed somehow and now even though education is "free" our tax burden is higher, our reali incomes lower, and many people are stuck in p*ss-poor schools. Some solution.

    The private sector is why America is where it is (coupled with our solid foundation in common law including individual rights, property rights and transparency in government, among other things). When allowed to flourish in a stable legal environment that respects property rights, the private sector is basically the greatest thing to EVER happen to poor people in the history of the world, provided it is working in concert with a government that recognizes property rights...by FAR. There can be no serious debate about this. Yet many people cling to beliefs in state-run institutions and harbor irrational fears of the private sector. Some myths die hard. Like the oft-quoted belief that wealth or income is a zero sum game. It amazes me that whenever there is a problem, so many people cling to the belief that less freedom is the answer. Let people keep more of their money. Let service providers provide services and things will improve as they have in virtually every industry, in terms of affordability. Only very rich people used to be able to afford phones and cars and TVs and computers. Now, they are common place. Get the government out of the picture completely. Let people spend their money as they fit and let doctors provide services as they see fit. The government can be one of many providers of healthcare if they want, sure. But that should be optional. I'd be perfectly willing to even pay some taxes to fund "last-resort" healthcare for the truly needy, but I'd want to see some real spending cuts elsewhere to finance it. However, what I will [B]not [/B] stand for is any form of socialized healthcare or "universal" system, cause I've seen what government monopolies in service industries mean and what no part of that with regards to healthcare decisions for me and my family. They can screw with education if they must, I can educate my children well enough. But I don't know how to provide them healthcare and would like to keep the money I earn to best hire people who can!
    Last edited by jets5ever; 06-26-2007 at 05:50 PM.

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Dude...I live in Western NY. I don't think I can live much cheaper than I already do. :D

    Self employed? Not anymore brother. We had to close our business because of getting royally screwed by Toll Brothers, go figure :rolleyes:


    Work two jobs?! ROTFLMAO....yeah, right. Cmon...Im just a lazy American that b*tches about stuff. Im not gonna really do anything to change it.... :yes:

    The guy who's apartment complex I run is in the process of setting something up for me. He is CEO of a company up here that handles housing for assisted living people all over the country...so I'm sure he has the right connections to hook a brother up.


    Am I right or wrong for assuming that ER visits are probably where the medical community gets screwed out of most of their money?[/QUOTE]

    Royally screwed by the Toll Brothers?? I don't understand what that means.

    I am not saying you are lazy, merely saying you have choices and that you choose to be presently uninsured, which is true no matter what you say. It is your responsibility and your responsibility alone.

    What do you mean, hook a brother up? He's going to get you health insurance somehow? I don't understand.

    As for your last question, I don't know.

  20. #60
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]I earn less. But have other perks that they dont. Whats your point?
    I earn roughly $170,000. My friend in the exact same field earns close to $500,000 in the private sector. I work 5 days/week roughly 50hours/week. He works 6 days / week closer to 80 hrs/week.[/QUOTE]

    My point is that the government restrictions and price controls in Canada probably have a lot to do with their current shortage of doctors. Isn't that a plausible statement?

    You work less hours and have made the choice to value that free time more than the roughly $320,000 a year you are forgoing in salary. That's a perfectly reasonable choice - I LOVE my free time...and $170,000 is a heck of a good salary so you seem to have a great gig. However, many other doctors obviously value the marginal increase in salary more than they do the marginal increase in free time that is acheived by forgoing that higher salary. Crucially, both of you have made that choice for yourselves and have not had that choice thrust upon you by a busy-body government. If everyone had to earn $170k like you, is it not unreasonable to assume that fewer people would want to spend the time and money and stress involved with becoming an MD? MDs are high acheivers...chances are people with that level of academic achievment could fund success somewhere else; either as a doctor in another country or in a different field entirely.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us