Doctors make too much money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

So your argument is that, yes, insurance executives are parasites, but at least there are fewer of them than doctors. Ok then.

Let's try this again: insurance executives make an order of magnitude more than the anesthesiologists you hope to eliminate. And unlike those insurance executives, anesthesiologists contribute massively to patient safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

So your argument is that, yes, insurance executives are parasites, but at least there are fewer of them than doctors. Ok then.

Let's try this again: insurance executives make an order of magnitude more than the anesthesiologists you hope to eliminate. And unlike those insurance executives, anesthesiologists contribute massively to patient safety.

DP- What if the entire system is broken and ALL of the inflated costs are contributing- from the doctors salaries to the +$1,000 hospital visits to the $300 bandaids in the emergency room to the executive salaries? What if it all matters? What if it is all broken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

So your argument is that, yes, insurance executives are parasites, but at least there are fewer of them than doctors. Ok then.

Let's try this again: insurance executives make an order of magnitude more than the anesthesiologists you hope to eliminate. And unlike those insurance executives, anesthesiologists contribute massively to patient safety.

No one said to eliminate anesthesiologists. We just don't need as many of them if we stop involving them when they're unnecessary.

I'd love to get rid of insurance executives, but that's only going to happen when we get rid of insurance. Which, by the way, would almost certainly also result in a pay cut for anesthesiologists. They might only be able to afford a single beach house in addition to their mansion primary home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

So your argument is that, yes, insurance executives are parasites, but at least there are fewer of them than doctors. Ok then.

Let's try this again: insurance executives make an order of magnitude more than the anesthesiologists you hope to eliminate. And unlike those insurance executives, anesthesiologists contribute massively to patient safety.

No one said to eliminate anesthesiologists. We just don't need as many of them if we stop involving them when they're unnecessary.

I'd love to get rid of insurance executives, but that's only going to happen when we get rid of insurance. Which, by the way, would almost certainly also result in a pay cut for anesthesiologists. They might only be able to afford a single beach house in addition to their mansion primary home.

How rich , exactly, do you think anesthesiologists are? Your premise is false. No one is buying a mansion in the SC area and multiple vacation homes on a 500k salary. Especially not with all those student loans.

[Anonymous]

DC area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC area

DP- The entire country is not the DC area. There are parts of the country where the median income is probably less than $40,000 where specialist doctors are making even larger salaries than in DC- that anaesthesiologist is probably making $600,000.

You guys don’t even really disagree, you simply disagree on which cost is greater impact. In the end all of these costs impact cost and health outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is you can't cut the pay of doctors while medical schools cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. If doctors aren't paid a decent salary, no one's going into medicine because of the extreme debt load.

And the paths Boomer doctors used (military, for instance) have been severely curtailed.

You can't cut the pay of the lowest paid doctors. You can certainly cut the pay of radiologists, anesthesiologists, dermatologists, and orthopedic surgeons. We also don't need as many of some of them.

For instance, there's no reason gastroenterologists can't administer propofol themselves during basic screening colonoscopies, which would come with a huge cost savings. But gastroenterologists are worried about pissing off the anesthesiologists by not throwing the lucrative, easy cases to them.

and if you have a bad response to the propofol, should your GI leave the scope in your backside and work on your airway? Finish the scope and hope you’re still breathing when he is done? How about you and your family take this approach first and let us know how it goes.

It doesn't take long to withdraw a scope, and an anesthesiologist isn't going to be doing much on you during brief period.

You're basically paying the anesthesiologist to monitor vitals, which an RN could do for a fraction of the cost. There's probably already an RN there, so really you just need to add another tech to take notes

This isn't a hypothetical. Other countries do this without any worse outcomes.

Very common for a single anesthesiologist to oversee several nurse anesthetists. This is already happening. But I'll take a trained anesthesiologist to administer my anesthesia, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC area

DP- The entire country is not the DC area. There are parts of the country where the median income is probably less than $40,000 where specialist doctors are making even larger salaries than in DC- that anaesthesiologist is probably making $600,000.

You guys don’t even really disagree, you simply disagree on which cost is greater impact. In the end all of these costs impact cost and health outcomes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is you can't cut the pay of doctors while medical schools cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. If doctors aren't paid a decent salary, no one's going into medicine because of the extreme debt load.

And the paths Boomer doctors used (military, for instance) have been severely curtailed.

You can't cut the pay of the lowest paid doctors. You can certainly cut the pay of radiologists, anesthesiologists, dermatologists, and orthopedic surgeons. We also don't need as many of some of them.

For instance, there's no reason gastroenterologists can't administer propofol themselves during basic screening colonoscopies, which would come with a huge cost savings. But gastroenterologists are worried about pissing off the anesthesiologists by not throwing the lucrative, easy cases to them.

and if you have a bad response to the propofol, should your GI leave the scope in your backside and work on your airway? Finish the scope and hope you’re still breathing when he is done? How about you and your family take this approach first and let us know how it goes.

It doesn't take long to withdraw a scope, and an anesthesiologist isn't going to be doing much on you during brief period.

You're basically paying the anesthesiologist to monitor vitals, which an RN could do for a fraction of the cost. There's probably already an RN there, so really you just need to add another tech to take notes

This isn't a hypothetical. Other countries do this without any worse outcomes.

Very common for a single anesthesiologist to oversee several nurse anesthetists. This is already happening. But I'll take a trained anesthesiologist to administer my anesthesia, thanks.

A CNA is expensive, too. Gastroenterologists are perfectly capable of administering propofol for conscious sedation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance executives make too much money. Not doctors.

Even if that’s morally true it’s not an explanation for systemic costs. One CEO making too much is a drop in the bucket relative to hundreds of thousands of doctors making much more than European/Canadian/Australian doctors.

It's not once CEO, OP. Each insurance company has multiple subsidiaries--for "utilization management" (Maximizing denials), pharmacy benefits managers, etc. And each of these has dozens of executives with email jobs, many making 7-8 figure salaries.. And of course, each of these insurance companies pays out huge $$$ to PR shills and lobbyists to keep the racket going.

No wonder the government is cracking down on this fraud.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies and going single-payer, but executive pay isn't much of an issue. There are about 1,000 doctors per health insurance executive.

That dog wom’t hunt. The insirance executives are pure parasites who make an order of magnitude more $$$ than internists and family med doctors.

Those aren't the doctors who are grossly overpaid.

And there are very few insurance executives. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

So your argument is that, yes, insurance executives are parasites, but at least there are fewer of them than doctors. Ok then.

Let's try this again: insurance executives make an order of magnitude more than the anesthesiologists you hope to eliminate. And unlike those insurance executives, anesthesiologists contribute massively to patient safety.

No one said to eliminate anesthesiologists. We just don't need as many of them if we stop involving them when they're unnecessary.

I'd love to get rid of insurance executives, but that's only going to happen when we get rid of insurance. Which, by the way, would almost certainly also result in a pay cut for anesthesiologists. They might only be able to afford a single beach house in addition to their mansion primary home.

How rich , exactly, do you think anesthesiologists are? Your premise is false. No one is buying a mansion in the SC area and multiple vacation homes on a 500k salary. Especially not with all those student loans.

You're not including the salary of the spouse in the household income. And a mid to late career anesthesiologist in DC is likely making more than $500k. Many absolutely do have multiple vacation homes, though I see that more in the radiologists that can work remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC area

DP- The entire country is not the DC area. There are parts of the country where the median income is probably less than $40,000 where specialist doctors are making even larger salaries than in DC- that anaesthesiologist is probably making $600,000.

You guys don’t even really disagree, you simply disagree on which cost is greater impact. In the end all of these costs impact cost and health outcomes.

I doubt the pp actually thinks insurance executives have much of an impact on health care costs. Besides the fact that their numbers are dwarfed by doctors, their actions tend to decrease health care costs (for better or worse).

They're probably in an overpaid specialty area and worried about seeing their inflated pay cut.

[Anonymous]

My doc friend (surgeon) was offered over a $1M salary to work in Montana. Yet people will argue docs aren't overpaid. Give me a break. Even after accounting for PPP, salaries for physicians are grossly inflated compared to their counterparts abroad. $1M salary is ridiculous. Everything in US health is massively overpriced. Doctor salaries, nurse salaries, hospital staff salaries, insurance costs, ...... every single thing about US Healthcare sucks. The entire system needs to be blown up. Unfortunately it means salary cuts across the board are needed too to rein in costs.

And yes, I believe student loan debts for docs should all be forgiven if there is a massive overhaul. But stop with the woe is me, you are paying extraordinary prices for a doc's education. Give me a break. If there is such a shortage of physicians, why do we let the licensing cartels for schools and doctors artificially limit the supplies in first place? There should be zero cap on the number of MDs graduated per year, and accredited schools should be increased by 5 fold. But no, they won't let it happen because they want to artificially create scarcity on purpose so they can keep salaries grossly inflated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC area

DP- The entire country is not the DC area. There are parts of the country where the median income is probably less than $40,000 where specialist doctors are making even larger salaries than in DC- that anaesthesiologist is probably making $600,000.

You guys don’t even really disagree, you simply disagree on which cost is greater impact. In the end all of these costs impact cost and health outcomes.

I doubt the pp actually thinks insurance executives have much of an impact on health care costs. Besides the fact that their numbers are dwarfed by doctors, their actions tend to decrease health care costs (for better or worse).

They're probably in an overpaid specialty area and worried about seeing their inflated pay cut.

That would be silly because I doubt DCUM discussions have an actual tangible effect on policy. 🤣😂🤣😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My doc friend (surgeon) was offered over a $1M salary to work in Montana. Yet people will argue docs aren't overpaid. Give me a break. Even after accounting for PPP, salaries for physicians are grossly inflated compared to their counterparts abroad. $1M salary is ridiculous. Everything in US health is massively overpriced. Doctor salaries, nurse salaries, hospital staff salaries, insurance costs, ...... every single thing about US Healthcare sucks. The entire system needs to be blown up. Unfortunately it means salary cuts across the board are needed too to rein in costs.

And yes, I believe student loan debts for docs should all be forgiven if there is a massive overhaul. But stop with the woe is me, you are paying extraordinary prices for a doc's education. Give me a break. If there is such a shortage of physicians, why do we let the licensing cartels for schools and doctors artificially limit the supplies in first place? There should be zero cap on the number of MDs graduated per year, and accredited schools should be increased by 5 fold. But no, they won't let it happen because they want to artificially create scarcity on purpose so they can keep salaries grossly inflated.

They’re offering these salaries to entice people to come to Montana. Doctors are often making more in Montana than DC. This is because there are so many doctors in DC it drives the insurance reimbursement rates down. These positions usually also require a lot of call because there are fewer doctors to share the call schedule with. It’s supply and demand but don’t assume that the same position is paying the same in DC.
My husband recently switched jobs and we similarly got these great offers but ultimately turned it down because it still wasn’t worth it to us to live there.