....lybob Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Toronto is the Miami of Canada. Other Canadian neurosurgeons elsewhere pay 1/3 to 1/2 less than in Toronto. And in 2005, the average malpractice was over $100,000 and is surely higher now. So taking that premium and your $250K salary, who would become a neurosurgeon? As for my assurance, it's far more realistic than yours. The AMA has been artificially restricting the number of doctors in the United States for a 100 years to increase pay- so spare me any complaints about the government interfering with free market economics in healthcare.
meazza Posted November 20, 2012 Author Posted November 20, 2012 avg tuition for canadian med school is about 13K so not much different than in state tuition to a us med school and when you're talking about halving a neurosurgeons salary the tuition differences become pretty insignificant. the difference in population is mitigated by the difference in available spots. it's the percentage admitted that is salient to the discussion and those numbers are very similar. show me some "twisted" statistics that support your position. in earlier discussions on comparisons of quality of care, what has been presented here are criticisms of the type of data i'm presenting but never original data that shows the opposing contention. let's see it. Didn't i start a thread about this that ended up being derailed into poor people can't get to grocery stores?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) The AMA has been artificially restricting the number of doctors in the United States for a 100 years to increase pay- so spare me any complaints about the government interfering with free market economics in healthcare. I never realized you were a Milton Freidman acolyte. Also, it needs to be noted that as recently as 2005 the AMA reversed field on this issue citing their fears of an impending doctor shortage and immediately began instituting policy to rectify the situation. Edited November 20, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
3rdnlng Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 The AMA has been artificially restricting the number of doctors in the United States for a 100 years to increase pay- so spare me any complaints about the government interfering with free market economics in healthcare. Can you back this up with anything? A link would be nice. If you can't find that, how about giving a detailed explanation of your thought process? BTW, I haven't asked you for awhile, but what is your expertise in the real estate and mortgage industries? I'm only asking because you made a statement that to the layman would appear accurate and insightful, but was so basically wrong that it was obvious to me that you were full of schit. I know, it's been probably two years and I've asked you about 20 times and you still refuse to respond. It's ok, my consolation prize is that you'll now probably just run and hide again and save this board from having to read your schit.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 So you know all about SF do you? Well what you know is 100% wrong. SF, the king of progressive cities is just the opposite. They're actually getting their first Target in the city limits. They allowed that kicking and a screaming. Let me ask you how close is the nearest grocery store to the inner city in Chicago and how many bus lines will get you there? Which "inner city?" There are many parts. Down here. Very few.
birdog1960 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Toronto is the Miami of Canada. Other Canadian neurosurgeons elsewhere pay 1/3 to 1/2 less than in Toronto. And in 2005, the average malpractice was over $100,000 and is surely higher now. So taking that premium and your $250K salary, who would become a neurosurgeon? As for my assurance, it's far more realistic than yours. the income figures cited are exclusive of malpractice costs i.e. take home pay. but i can understand why you want to confuse the issue. healthcare debates on this board remind me of this discussion: european sport coupes are as good as american ones. the 1/4 mile times, lateral g's,accident avoidance, reliability and mile time around pocono are all better. yeah,but, a car is very subjective and they had top end michelins on that car when the american car had goodyear eagles. and they had better drivers. and, well, i just don't like european sport coupes. you would think that same american think tank would have come up with some damning outcome statistics by now to use in the last election against obamacare. maybe like wait time dependent illness outcomes with diseases like melanoma or acute leukemia or small cell cancer of the lung (sorry 3rd MI and unstable angina numbers are pretty easy to compare and i don't thi k there's much difference) but this data doesn't seem to exist. and it probably won't soon come to light as those places have stopped looking. they lost.
Chef Jim Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Which "inner city?" There are many parts. Down here. Very few. Pick a part and answer the question. And last I checked very few means some. Life is hard but the persistent survive.
3rdnlng Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 the income figures cited are exclusive of malpractice costs i.e. take home pay. but i can understand why you want to confuse the issue. healthcare debates on this board remind me of this discussion: european sport coupes are as good as american ones. the 1/4 mile times, lateral g's,accident avoidance, reliability and mile time around pocono are all better. yeah,but, a car is very subjective and they had top end michelins on that car when the american car had goodyear eagles. and they had better drivers. and, well, i just don't like european sport coupes. you would think that same american think tank would have come up with some damning outcome statistics by now to use in the last election against obamacare. maybe like wait time dependent illness outcomes with diseases like melanoma or acute leukemia or small cell cancer of the lung (sorry 3rd MI and unstable angina numbers are pretty easy to compare and i don't thi k there's much difference) but this data doesn't seem to exist. and it probably won't soon come to light as those places have stopped looking. they lost. Great statistical analysis. I say to look beyond the mere numbers and do a little thinking, and you say "I don't think there's much difference"? That's your argument? You don't think? Your arrogance is unbecoming. "They lost"? If we don't gut that POS legislation we all have lost.
birdog1960 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Great statistical analysis. I say to look beyond the mere numbers and do a little thinking, and you say "I don't think there's much difference"? That's your argument? You don't think? Your arrogance is unbecoming. "They lost"? If we don't gut that POS legislation we all have lost. isn't it time that you do some research and prove me wrong? if i present data that supports my position yall ignore it but give no evidence to support yours. it's impossible to do statistical analysis with no statistics. so go ahead. find me some numbers on outcomes for the conditions you mentioned.ya see, the difference is that those systems take care of the most urgent and serious problems first, even for poor people. and the elective stuff has to wait even for people like tytt (even after has put on clean underwear and put madden down to go to the doctors). and that's more efficient, costs less and generally results in better outcomes when looked at over the entire system (including poor people).
Doc Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 the income figures cited are exclusive of malpractice costs i.e. take home pay. but i can understand why you want to confuse the issue. healthcare debates on this board remind me of this discussion: european sport coupes are as good as american ones. the 1/4 mile times, lateral g's,accident avoidance, reliability and mile time around pocono are all better. yeah,but, a car is very subjective and they had top end michelins on that car when the american car had goodyear eagles. and they had better drivers. and, well, i just don't like european sport coupes. you would think that same american think tank would have come up with some damning outcome statistics by now to use in the last election against obamacare. maybe like wait time dependent illness outcomes with diseases like melanoma or acute leukemia or small cell cancer of the lung (sorry 3rd MI and unstable angina numbers are pretty easy to compare and i don't thi k there's much difference) but this data doesn't seem to exist. and it probably won't soon come to light as those places have stopped looking. they lost. So if a neurosurgeon pays $75-80K more in malpractice a year...? Yes, the American people lost. Cancer survival rates are going to be dismal, like they are in socialized countries. Wait times/access to care is going to be lousy. And the waste and fraud will bankrupt this country. But keep deluding yourself into thinking this is anything but a major !@#$-up by Barry and his merry band of idiots.
3rdnlng Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 isn't it time that you do some research and prove me wrong? if i present data that supports my position yall ignore it but give no evidence to support yours. it's impossible to do statistical analysis with no statistics. so go ahead. find me some numbers on outcomes for the conditions you mentioned.ya see, the difference is that those systems take care of the most urgent and serious problems first, even for poor people. and the elective stuff has to wait even for people like tytt (even after has put on clean underwear and put madden down to go to the doctors). and that's more efficient, costs less and generally results in better outcomes when looked at over the entire system (including poor people). I sent you statistics on wait time in Canada. You don't think that waiting 4 1/2 months for a needed surgery is a problem? I've heard you proclaim some statistics, but who knows if what you say is accurate? Besides, without putting them in context, they mean nothing. Again, if the people with the most serious heart conditions die off before getting attention in Canada, then Canada's success rate for heart operations will be tilted higher. What don't you get about putting things in context?
Doc Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 I sent you statistics on wait time in Canada. You don't think that waiting 4 1/2 months for a needed surgery is a problem? I've heard you proclaim some statistics, but who knows if what you say is accurate? Besides, without putting them in context, they mean nothing. Again, if the people with the most serious heart conditions die off before getting attention in Canada, then Canada's success rate for heart operations will be tilted higher. What don't you get about putting things in context? It's okay for the government to delay/ration treatment and for people to suffer/die as a result.
3rdnlng Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 It's okay for the government to delay/ration treatment and for people to suffer/die as a result. One less SS payment for the government to endure.
birdog1960 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 So if a neurosurgeon pays $75-80K more in malpractice a year...? idiots. and his collections are $350000 more...he brings home more.but keep demonizing without basis. you're not convincing but that's all you got.here's another piece of information that gives us some insight into how this will work or not work: massachusettes. romneycare is very similar to obamacare. and romney was very proud of it til he realized he couldn't win the republican nomination supporting it. and it's done pretty well. none of the disasters you're predicting have come to pass. there's still some of the best doctors in the world at the brigham. there are very few uninsured. costs haven't decreased but aren't out of line with the rest of the country.
/dev/null Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) and his collections are $350000 more...he brings home more.but keep demonizing without basis. you're not convincing but that's all you got.here's another piece of information that gives us some insight into how this will work or not work: massachusettes. romneycare is very similar to obamacare. and romney was very proud of it til he realized he couldn't win the republican nomination supporting it. and it's done pretty well. none of the disasters you're predicting have come to pass. there's still some of the best doctors in the world at the brigham. there are very few uninsured. costs haven't decreased but aren't out of line with the rest of the country. Yeah but the biggest difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that if Romneycare became too much of a burden, the people could pick up and move to a more friendly environment. Obamacare and one sized fits all Central Planning does not grant the people that same opportunity Edited November 20, 2012 by /dev/null
Nanker Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Oh Canada! Why are your people coming to the US to get medical treatment when you've got free healthcare up nord? eh?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Pick a part and answer the question. And last I checked very few means some. Life is hard but the persistent survive. Fair enough. Here there are vast wastelands of inner city that is under served. Is it fair? Probably not. Do people have options? Probably so. Should it be better? Most likely. It does drag us all down when compassion is chucked out the window. I said early... If one can drive, many can scratch up a grand or two (if even that) on a beater car that will get them around... And many you do see! Yeah but the biggest difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that if Romneycare became too much of a burden, the people could pick up and move to a more friendly environment. Obamacare and one sized fits all Central Planning does not grant the people that same opportunity People are free to leave the country. On another note... About leaving less favorable states for more favorable states... Take California for example , if it is so bad and a "liberal hell"... Why did they gain one electoral vote since 2000?
Chef Jim Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Fair enough. Here there are vast wastelands of inner city that is under served. Is it fair? Probably not. Do people have options? Probably so. Should it be better? Most likely. It does drag us all down when compassion is chucked out the window. I said early... If one can drive, many can scratch up a grand or two (if even that) on a beater car that will get them around... And many you do see! People are free to leave the country. On another note... About leaving less favorable states for more favorable states... Take California for example , if it is so bad and a "liberal hell"... Why did they gain one electoral vote since 2000? Or the $2 bus fare.
birdog1960 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Oh Canada! Why are your people coming to the US to get medical treatment when you've got free healthcare up nord? eh? wow, they wait the longest for plastic surgery! that's awful. shortest for oncology...makes sense. but this is what it comes down to in my estimation: everybody gets care but not as quickly for a covered pt in traditional fee for service market (e.g. us). as i've said ad nauseum, this still results in better overall outcomes throughout the system in most cases.but that's not what matters to the cons on the board. they don't care about how the changes will affect the system overall but how it will affect them or people like them. and if they're insured well, it will likely make wait times longer. the fact that many uninsured people will have much better care and thus likely improve the overall health of the nation, is irrelevant.
meazza Posted November 20, 2012 Author Posted November 20, 2012 wow, they wait the longest for plastic surgery! that's awful. shortest for oncology...makes sense. but this is what it comes down to in my estimation: everybody gets care but not as quickly for a covered pt in traditional fee for service market (e.g. us). as i've said ad nauseum, this still results in better overall outcomes throughout the system in most cases.but that's not what matters to the cons on the board. they don't care about how the changes will affect the system overall but how it will affect them or people like them. and if they're insured well, it will likely make wait times longer. the fact that many uninsured people will have much better care and thus likely improve the overall health of the nation, is irrelevant. And yet you have a clear example just north of you that shows that the system is doing terribly. What you have is a public system where people are opting more and more towards privatization.
Recommended Posts