Why do liberals think doctors get paid too much?

[Laguna Loire]

Who are they to say how much they should get paid? Doctors go to medical school for six to twelve years, sometimes more, to get where they are, they deserve the pay they get. Look at the British and other socialist healthcare countries, where doctors get paid very little money, and as a result there is virtually no desire to be a doctor, and so they import practically all their doctors from the United States.

 

[Stride]

I believe a big part of the debate is that some Doctor's (not all) will prescribe unnecessary testing to make more money. For instance, if a Doctor knows that you have the insurance to cover a weeks stay in the hospital, they'll authorize and recommended it to you for the betterment of your health. The Doctor gets paid and the insurance company gets paid for the unnecessary treatment.

 

[tangerinedream]

First of all, all liberals don't think that doctors get paid too much. How do I know? I'm a liberal. I don't think that they get paid too much.

Second of all, framing a question with a loaded "Why do liberals (or conservatives)" generalization like that is hardly going to lead anywhere good.

Thirdly, about the question, I think the better question would be to ask why doctors' malpractice premiums are so high, and the quick answer to that would be because of the insanely litigious society we've got going here. Also, part of what people are counting as money going to the doctors is money spent on tests. I doubt seriously that my OB got paid directly for the cost of the sonograms done at the hospital. The doctors don't usually get paid directly for tests, but they will get partially reimbursed by the insurance company for some of the tests they order.

In my experience, the larger medical costs surround hospitalization. If you are hospitalized, who do you think gets the bulk of that money, your doctor? Doubtful. The hospital and insurance companies get that before any of the dr's bills get entered into it. Hospital costs are outrageously high and it's not just dr's fees. Take a look at how a hospital bill breaks down and see what they bill your insurance company for Tylenol and your meals.

Fourth, I had no idea that the majority of the doctors in the UK and other countries with socialized medicine are Americans, as you mentioned. Who knew?

 

[IgnoredOne]

Who are they to say how much they should get paid? Doctors go to medical school for six to twelve years, sometimes more, to get where they are, they deserve the pay they get. Look at the British and other socialist healthcare countries, where doctors get paid very little money, and as a result there is virtually no desire to be a doctor, and so they import practically all their doctors from the United States.

Why do you post political, controversial questions here?

 

[Minus]

Second of all, framing a question with a loaded "Why do liberals (or conservatives)" generalization like that is hardly going to lead anywhere good.

After see enough of this type thing, i get the impression that the idea is more to rail against the "liberal" boogie man that it is to lead to anything constructive.

 

[blackhole]

the "liberal" boogie man

who?

this guy?

oh,

he's real,

and he's under your beds!!!

all of you!

---

to answer the original question,

it is because some believe america is a land that should provide equal opportunity,

while others believe it is a land that should provide equal outcomes.

 

[tangerinedream]

to answer the original question,

it is because some believe america is a land that should provide equal opportunity,

while others believe it is a land that should provide equal outcomes.

I think that very few liberals in the US want equal outcomes. That brings up the specter of communism and forced redistribution of wealth and 100% government ownership of property. Despite what some of the pundits would have you believe, that is not the "liberal agenda."

I think that the problem surrounding equal opportunity is seeing to it that it is TRULY equal in practice and not just lip service. Certainly, people are not legally prohibited from opportunity based on class/ethnicity/religion, but people most certainly are at a disadvantage when you realize that opportunities are there if you have the financial resources to pay for them.

America has slowly become the Land of Opportunity... as long as you can afford the cost.

For the rest of you who can't do much more but live paycheck to paycheck: fresia off and get back to the grindstone. You're just the serfs and servants. *insert generic rant on how the US has become a gigantic service industry here* Breaking free of that mold for you is going to be disproportionately harder than for someone from a higher socio-economic class. Not impossible, no. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that money opens more doors, providing a wider range of opportunity.

JMO, but it's my belief that access to these fabled opportunities is not truly equal for everyone.

 

[IgnoredOne]

JMO, but it's my belief that access to these fabled opportunities is not truly equal for everyone.

Yes, but is really different anywhere else? We could look at more socialized governments such as in the United Kingdom where education is much more heavily subsidized - is there that much more career mobility? Social mobility? I don't have any hard numbers, but having lived a decent part of my life in the UK, I strongly lean that it isn't the case. Neither is it in France, or anywhere else, really.

Part of it might simply be how humanity /is/. Money will always open more opportunities, and essentially 'breaking free' doesn't seem all that possible for anyone. I'm from a higher socioeconomic class and I know that I'm advantaged, but at the end of the day, I'm still going to be working a role for someone else. Every investment, too, has its own entanglement; my parents have over a million and a number of properties, and with that, comes the need for an expensive legal team.

I won't say that my life isn't more comfortable by vast margins or that I don't have an obligation to pay back to society for what it has given me, but I do think it poses a viable question - do government regulations truly expand opportunities for members of society, and if so, to what extent?

I think, for example, bussing and desegregation has been a great boon to social equality. Without national laws that broke social racism, the progress of society would have been much slower. Yet at the same time, are affirmative action laws still necessary? Are they fair, if they allow someone who is less qualified to enter a position by the value of his skin?

Or consider the even more true specter of the immortality of government agencies. Once an agency is created, they rarely ever get closed. There are New Deal government agencies, still extant, who still collect a paycheck for purposes that have long ceased to be valid. That could certainly be true of regulation, too.

I wish that policies could be considered on objective, scientific basis rather than the often emotional sways toward 'liberalism' or 'conservatism.' I'm not sure it'll ever happen.

 

[blackhole]

i don't have a problem with liberals.

hell, i used to be one, and in some ways, still very much am.

my problem is the left (in general) embracing communist, marxist, socialist, anarchists, and cozying up to radical islamists abroad.

look into it.

 

[IgnoredOne]

I think liberals have a tragically optimistic view of humanity and the world. I think the particularly tragic part, though, is the fact that it is false - because I /would/ like the world to be a better place. But at the end of the day, I think that realpolitik and pragmatism is a far better way to ensure the safety of oneself and one's family and that matters to me more than any ideal.

I would like society to be full of nice people who wouldn't hurt me but I would rather live in a gated community with the means and training to use lethal force to protect myself and my own.

I don't actually object to 'marxists' or communism as a concept. Its actually a beautiful concept, with potentially useful lesson. I mean, capitalism at its heart is about greed and the idea that universal greed and struggle is the best means of deciding the distribution of property and services. I think it may indeed the best method we have, but that very fact is disturbing, isn't it?

 

[SofiasMami]

Nice try with your nonsensical posts to get a rise out of liberals. If you really believe this crap, you haven't met enough liberals.

Teresa

 

[blackhole]

i'm a fan of personal responsibility over collective salvation

 

[Kataphractos]

Look at the British and other socialist healthcare countries, where doctors get paid very little money, and as a result there is virtually no desire to be a doctor, and so they import practically all their doctors from the United States.

Lolwut? Source please?

And yeah, fail troll is fail.

 

[Badjedidude]

Laguna Loire is a welcome addition to this forum. His frequent attempts at humor and comedy entertainment lighten my day considerably. When I read his material, I can't help but chuckle. Thanks for making my day, LL!

Keep posting your entertainment and fiction!

 

[LostInside]

Who are they to say how much they should get paid? Doctors go to medical school for six to twelve years, sometimes more, to get where they are, they deserve the pay they get. Look at the British and other socialist healthcare countries, where doctors get paid very little money, and as a result there is virtually no desire to be a doctor, and so they import practically all their doctors from the United States.

Firstly I am liberal and I completely disagree with all your blanket statements. Doctors go to medical school for 4 years, not 6-to-12 years. Doctors then have residency program which could potentially be followed up with a fellowship. Anyone who knows Doctors or who has looked at medical school as an option knows if you let it known anywhere along the application process that you are in it for the money then someone is not getting into medical school. Medical professionals are not the problem, insurance companies are.

 

[Tino Tsutchie]

I would think so because so many of our life influencing services pay so little. Im not of the belief that doctors should be paid much less then they are (but a mild cut in may would suffice), it would probably make other jobs (teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers, etc) more desirable if the rise in pay helped make these jobs more desirable.

 

[cumulus.james]

Who are they to say how much they should get paid? Doctors go to medical school for six to twelve years, sometimes more, to get where they are, they deserve the pay they get. Look at the British and other socialist healthcare countries, where doctors get paid very little money, and as a result there is virtually no desire to be a doctor, and so they import practically all their doctors from the United States.

Doctors here in the UK are not poorly paid! they earn usually over £100,000 ($160,740.00) a year. And we do not exactly get great health service! Our cancer survival rates are WAY behind the states.