Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“What ObamaCare Will Cost Doctors”

Chris Link, MD., The American Thinker:

Anesthesiologists bill for most surgical cases with a combination of base units depending on the particular surgery (e.g. cardiac bypass has a higher base value than a hernia repair), plus one time unit for every 15 minutes. The average anesthesiologist bills 10,198 units in a year. Medicare pays, on average, $20.925 per unit. Now $213,393 a year sounds like a pretty decent living for most of us and it certainly would be until you start backing out expenses.

A billing service is in the neighborhood of 6% ($12,804) and average malpractice is about $23,000. I’m paying around $15,000 a year for health insurance for a family of four. Various expenses for continuing education, computers, cell phone, office supplies, etc. adds up to around $5,000. AMA, state and local medical society and American Society of Anesthesiologists dues add up to $1,700, if one chooses to join. I’d like to retire someday, so I put away 10% for retirement. Self-employment taxes take $17,154. And I have no employees or office. Most medical practices have a much higher overhead both in real terms and as a percent of revenue.

So what’s left?

$117,753, but without the “doctor fix” it would be $85,770. All that in exchange for 50-60 hours a week (including being on-call), coming out of school with an average student loan debt of $156,000 with a payment of over $1,000 per month, and putting your life on hold until at least age thirty. Suddenly it doesn’t look like such an attractive option.

And then there’s the guy you knew in college who coasted through studying sociology and went to work for the US Department of Health and Human Services right after graduation. He’s had eight years to climb through the bureaucratic ranks and is now one of the 19% of the federal workforce that makes over $100,000 and that’s before bonuses and overtime. And you always thought he was kind of an idiot.

The average pay of a federal worker in now $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector. Excellent fringe benefits widen the gap even more.

Most of my colleagues are similar to me in coming from middle class backgrounds. I worked to go to school and probably paid for half of my education at a state university. I borrowed money for medical school. Another significant number of doctors are second or third generation physicians, but very few come from well-to-do non-medical backgrounds. And what will happen when medicine is no longer an attractive option for bright motivated youth to move up the socioeconomic ladder?

See that assistant supervisor at your local DMV? The guy sitting in the office drinking coffee, shuffling reports and playing solitaire on the computer?

Meet your heart surgeon.

Not only are we witnessing the makings of a permanent Democrat client state; we are witnessing the cultural evolution of a free society into the world of Brazil.

Time was that Kafkaesque was used to describe a cautionary tale, not a civic game plan.

Enjoy your cubicles, insects.

0 Replies to ““What ObamaCare Will Cost Doctors””

  1. Spiny Norman says:

    The average pay of a federal worker in now $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector. Excellent fringe benefits widen the gap even more.

    It used to be that people took government sector jobs for the civil service job security and generous benefits, in exchange for lower salaries. Now the mousy government clerks have become the SEIU purple-shirted thugs.

    What the fuck went on there?

  2. sdferr says:

    Peaches and Herb sing: Stultification and it feels so good.

  3. LBascom says:

    See, what I don’t understand is why the ruling class doesn’t see the overall decline in medical quality hurting them as well. I mean sure, they will always have the best and the brightest for themselves, but if when the system stagnates, and there is never enough financing to drive innovation and new technology, everybody is in the same boat. With the tide in ebb.

    Where is the politician from Nova Scotia going to go for his cutting edge surgery in the future?

  4. CraigC says:

    Hey, Jeff, Roger has a piece at PJ that’s right up your alley.

  5. Pablo says:

    I was with my BIL, who works for an evil pharma conglomerate and deals exclusively with doctors, on Easter. He relates that the docs he’s talked to are, without exception, scared to death for the future of their profession.

  6. happyfeet says:

    the crushing obamadebt is his mostest clever instrument of tyranny… let’s yoke the motherfuckers, says our little president man.

    Yoke ’em and then rape ’em.

    Hate him.

  7. Alec Leamas says:

    Serves ’em right for taking all those big bucks for unnecessary tonsillectomies. Or something.

  8. Pablo says:

    And tossing pacemakers around willy nilly. Take the pill, Grandma!

  9. psycho... says:

    Christ, what a douche.

    Doctors’ high pay (which is much higher than “we” think it is, in relative terms, because Americans are far income-poorer than almost everyone thinks we are) is a bubble resulting from market barriers erected within living memory. At the behest of…

    “But this is one too many!”

    Fuck you, parasite.

  10. Carin says:

    My husband’s family practice doc gave him an EARFUL. Everyone should be very afraid.

  11. Slartibartfast says:

    Getting an earful from your urologist never felt so good.

    *** TRIGGER ALERT ***

  12. Slartibartfast says:

    Do not be afraid to click the link; my sick wordplay notwithstanding.

  13. Good Lt. says:

    Once the GOP controls Congress and the WH, the first order of business should be this: The abolition and prohibition of public sector employee unions.

    Let the Democrats scream. They know that would not only be death for the fiscal death spiral they’re trying to plunge the country into, but it would mean death for their political power as a national party.

    Justification for this ban on public employee unions? BENDING THE COST CURVE OF GOVERNMENT DOWN.

    Sound good?

  14. LBascom says:

    If doctors are really worried about their profession, they need to follow Cassell’s lead.

  15. Bob Reed says:

    OT, but get a load of this overt attempt at indoctrinating Texas school kids in accordance with the progressive mindset.

    http://powip.com/2010/04/if-stuff-like-this-is-happening-in-texas-schools/

    That’s how they plan to brainwash your future DMV clerk-cum-heart surgeon; to make sure they think the right way, before recieving their government-given student loan, and going on to get such propaganda reinforced at the ivory tower…

  16. LBascom says:

    I could be a single issue voter on that plank Good Lt.

    Another justification? Conflict of interest. Public unions negotiate against the private citizen.

  17. Mr. W says:

    I met some attorneys for DC the other day. Their jobs were to fight fraud in the welfare state that is The Nations Capitol. They described fifth generation welfare collectors making 100+ thousand a year gaming the system by trading foster kids like baseball cards.

    You, Mr. Taxpayer, are the chump.

  18. JHo says:

    From the link:

    One post asked a very good question: “Why can’t we just put everyone in the country on Medicare?” Aside from the problem of a huge expansion in the unfunded obligations for the Medicare program, currently estimated to be $89 trillion, my immediate thought was that you can’t stay in business as a physician at Medicare reimbursement rates.

    A friend tells me that as a practitioner-specialist/CEO, he recoups half of what he bills to insurance. And one-third of what he bills to Medicare. What’s up?

    What’s up is what I alluded to in a previous piece, which is that prior legislation plus Medicare have driven the entire industry’s cost, billing, and recovery structures for years. This is medicine’s positive feedback loop, a system made unstable by the jackasses in Washington.

    That part about mandatory ER care? Like that times a whole lot. Medicine is all jacked up because medicine is already socialized, if only by effect and not MSNBC’s definition.

    Breaking stuff in order to own it, that is Washington DC. The endgame has private practices and medical companies selling themselves to hospitals just to survive, and hospitals being bought by government in time. Like, in most of our lifetimes.

    Every month I depend on patient assistance from the private sector to stay alive. I have found that sector most generous. I’m with Carin: Everyone should be very afraid.

  19. CraigC says:

    Whoops, sorry, I meant VDH on postmodernism.

  20. Republican on Acid says:

    My personal bitch: I am an engineer. My company already took away yearly bonuses for us. Needless to say, I now make less than my wife who is an art teacher. Sure she has been there for a while and I am proud of her, but she really doesn’t do much other than babysit other peoples kids. She works 7 hour days. She gets nearly 3 and 1/2 months off a year. Me, I am responsible for keeping millions of dollars worth of commercial transactions and so on up and running.I sometimes work 10 hour days (salaried, so no overtime). I get 5 weeks of vacation a year.
    This year for me: No pay raise – company hasn’t come out and said it, but the word is they can’t afford to give any because of costs built into the new healthcare deal – although I am sure, as is always the case, the executives will still somehow manage to make themselves some sort of great bonus. I still see people around me (I work with alot of nerdy fucks – star trek lovers) who just think Obama is the bees knees. It’s totally insane.
    For my wife: about a 10 grand pay raise for finishing some bogus on line college garbage for 15 extra hours past her masters degree.

  21. mojo says:

    SEIU (AKA “Engulf and Devour”) happened. In California, the legislature is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

  22. LBascom says:

    I presume you mean this VDH Craig?

    The key will be to redefine as liberal something as inherently illiberal as illegal immigration. Thus there will be no discussion of what the surge over the last two decades of more than 11 million illegal aliens has done to poorer American workers.

    This is my favorite part:

    By now millions see the evocation of race as more reflective of the biases of the accuser than his target.

    I hope millions take my advice and aggressively knock the accuser on his ass (rhetorically of course) every time it’s tried.

  23. dicentra says:

    See, what I don’t understand is why the ruling class doesn’t see the overall decline in medical quality hurting them as well.

    (a) If we’re all equally miserable, then mission accomplished, because it’s all about fairness.
    (b) The piper never comes to collect his fee. Consequences are for greedy capitalists.
    (c) RAAAAACIST!
    (d) Unless you’re in a union, in which case you’re more equal than the others.

  24. dicentra says:

    #15 Bob.

    Looked over just a bit of that and it did nothing good to my blood pressure.

    I am really starting to hate those people. I can handle people having different ideas; I cannot handle malicious lies.

  25. bour3 says:

    For some reason unknown to me my GP likes to discuss things far off topic. He keeps me there longer than scheduled just to engage while clients are waiting. He hated Bush and issued the most discouraging and trite opinions. At one point he asked, “So what do you think of your man Bush now?” As if Bush was my man. I shrugged. I was in tremendous discomfort with a paralyzed face at that moment and in no position to counter antagonism which I thought was unfair. He went on demeaning Cheney and Rove with the usual calumny. I croaked, “Whenever I see Cheney on TV I think, ‘Uncle Cheney!'” He looked at me as if I were an alien creature. Ha ha ha. So anyway, I caught glimpse of his office which is a perfect disaster. Evidence of a disordered mind. I thought he was moving or reorganizing but the nurse said, “No. It’s always like that and he gets quite mad when we straighten it.” I swear, it looked like an explosion of paper that somehow landed in careless stacks. Which led to the thought, “What dreadful piles those papers are. All deathly serious shit, the type of mail that makes a tender-hearted bloke cringe, such as myself.” The sort of mail I put off opening. Imagine if I sent him some mail that was serious in appearance, priority mail, certified, return receipt, delivery confirmation, the full urgent postal panoply, that contains something so ridiculous and unanchored in reality that it makes him piss himself laughing. So I made this pop-up card and mailed it. Weeks later when I called the office about a line item on their invoice the RN ended by saying “Oh! We have your card here. We keep it at the front counter so now everybody coming in plays with it.”

  26. Bob Reed says:

    Lying liars on our public money nickel Dicentra.

    Ruining our younger generation by wasting their time on that drivel instead of actually educating them.

    And people wonder why our kids can’t read, write, or do higher math; or at least a combination of a subset of those abilities.

    It makes my head hurt too just thinking about it; especially in view of the hew and cry on the left about how, “Texas is standardizing wingnut values into their textbooks and that will effect the rest if the states in the nation!1!!11”.

  27. geoffb says:

    sdferr,

    Didn’t you send me a link that argued the opposite of the statement in that piece Bob linked. That conservatives do articulate a political philosophy and that it is progressives that do not?

    I have to run and can’t search for it.

  28. geoffb says:

    Swap the period and the question mark.

  29. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    The first line in that document is such an umitigated lie it isn’t funny, Bob. Liberals (there use, not mine) are optimistic? Bullshit. Pessimism underlies the whole modern liberal ideology. That’s why they need coercion (i.e. the state) to make it “perfect”.

  30. Alec Leamas says:

    Didn’t you send me a link that argued the opposite of the statement in that piece Bob linked. That conservatives do articulate a political philosophy and that it is progressives that do not?

    The problem is that the Progressive political philosophy is learned in the crib, and can be succinctly distilled to two words – “gimme stuff.”

  31. Bob Reed says:

    I agree OI,
    What may be even funnier is the beginning of the third part where it essentially says that liberals trust people to use good judgement, but that conservatives believe that people need to be controlled for their own sakes…

    What a crock, coming from someone who I assume is a paragon of PC virtue and probably agrees that the state should save obese kids from themselves.

    It’s hard to read that paper without simulaneously having your head explode, marveling at the inherent projection, and rolling on the floor in laughter; except it’s no laughing matter that they are teaching this drivel to our children on all of our nickels!

  32. sdferr says:

    Well… we have Hobbes on this score:

    The greatest part of those men who have written ought concerning Commonwealths, either suppose, or require us, or beg of us to believe, That Man is a Creature born fit for Society: The Greeks call him Zoon politikon, and on this foundation they so build up the Doctrine of Civill Society, as if for the preservation of Peace, and the Government of Man-kind there were nothing else necessary, than that Men should agree to make certaine Covenants and Conditions together, which themselves should then call Lawes. Which Axiom, though received by most, is yet certainly False, and an Errour proceeding from our too slight contemplation of Humane Nature; for they who shall more narrowly look into the Causes for which Men come together, and delight in each others company, shall easily find that this happens not because naturally it could happen no otherwise, but by Accident: For if by nature one Man should Love another (that is) as Man, there could no reason be return’d why every Man should not equally Love every Man, as being equally Man, or why he should rather frequent those whose Society affords him Honour or Profit. We doe not therefore by nature seek Society for its own sake, but that we may receive some Honour or Profit from it; these we desire Primarily, that Secondarily:

    And Madison, echoing:

    The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

  33. bh says:

    The key will be to redefine as liberal something as inherently illiberal as illegal immigration.

    Poor Sam. Such a sentence must be positively mind-bending for him.

  34. B Moe says:

    liberals trust people in government to use good judgement

    ftfy

  35. Jeff G. says:

    Those terms Hanson is using. They are so…strange. So alien.

    I don’t know how Hanson can use such words without confusing nearly anyone within reading distance.

    VAPORS!

  36. Bob Reed says:

    I know Jeff, It seems like I’ve heard some of those terms before…

    But I’m just not sure where…

  37. Blitz says:

    Mr W.?

    “They described fifth generation welfare collectors making 100+ thousand a year gaming the system by trading foster kids like baseball cards.”

    HOW? ‘ve had 2 foster children in my life (one when I was youngliving with mom, one a cupla years ago) And we sure as HELL didn’t make any money.

  38. sdferr says:

    I think I smell economies of scale building in there somewhere Danger, else it is hard to figure.

  39. CraigC says:

    Nope, I meant this VDH

  40. Slartibartfast says:

    Hanson rocks.

  41. happyfeet says:

    messenger friend D agrees bour3’s card is awesome

    D: ha that is awesome

  42. Bob Reed says:

    Here I was, just contempling recent dispatches from the, “YOU LIE!“, department and who pops in but RD/Meya/whoever he/she/itself…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwTGGHaCHAE

    Must’ve been the negative waves, Man.

  43. JD says:

    Fuck you, RD. Swordfish style.

  44. Bob Reed says:

    RD,

    You are not authorized to post off topic here in an attempt to derail the thread. Please discuss the topic at hand, the impact of Obamacare on Doctors wages and the resulting chill effect on those considering medicine as a career; or possibly how the usual mediaocre types will drift into it as often happens in the civilian government workforce-especially in view of thenationalization of the student loan industry.

    That is all

  45. Pablo says:

    Meanwhile, RD using the phone too.

    I’m sure there’s a point there somewhere.

  46. Abe Froman says:

    A stalker links to a story about a stalker. RD has a curious way of trying to score points.

  47. JHo says:

    Come on, Pablo. You can’t paint the entire movement with such a narrow brush.

  48. Jim Ryan says:

    “Contemporary liberalism is largely illiberal” doesn’t even smack of incoherence.

  49. Obstreperous infidel says:

    The jackass who left the message? I bet he shoots his 9 holding it sideways. After he missed the first two shots, he’d have the shit beat out of him. Punk.

  50. Slartibartfast says:

    I bet he shoots his 9 holding it sideways

    That’s a kill shot!

  51. Jeff G. says:

    I am icky. Some people like that, though.

  52. sdferr says:

    Here’s the thing geoffb had in mind above, I think. James Ceaser (from Entropy sometime back):

    For conservatives, it is clear that the attention they devote to their theoretical principles is meant as much more than a gesture to good breeding. Conservatives consider these principles to be directly related to the political world and to how it should be governed, which is precisely what the Left reproaches them for. As Richard Rorty remarked, “The idea that liberal societies are bound together by philosophical beliefs seems to me to be ludicrous . . . philosophy is not that important for politics.”

    In contrast, the Left today practices and sometimes preaches what may be described as “idealistic non-foundationalism.” This awkward label contains two components. To speak of the Left, even the Left of Washington, D.C., without highlighting its ideals or values—things like compassion, social justice, diversity, and development of personhood, to mention only a few—would be to miss completely what it is all about. Yet—and here the second component of the label comes into play—the liberal rarely links these ideals to a theoretical foundation. For a good many years, and even still today, it has been assumed on the Left that these values were so much a part of what all people, or at any rate all thinking people, espouse, that there was no need to recur to theoretical foundations. The “source” of these values was nothing less, but also nothing more, than the mighty “evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society,” where “maturing”—there is no need to be coy—means chiefly liberal. This is why the rise of the conservative challenge, with its brash introduction of theoretical claims, has been so distasteful to many on the Left. It has indecently broken up a nice party. But when pressed to go beyond the god of “evolving standards,” the Left, too, can support a “theoretical” claim of its own. It is that the deeper theoretical foundations, of the sort conservatives invoke, do not really exist in the sense of providing any objective standard; these are merely temporary vocabularies. And more important, we would be better off if these theoretical arguments were not brought into politics as claims of truth. The ideal democratic community can be—should be—constructed without them.

  53. JHo says:

    …the deeper theoretical foundations, of the sort conservatives invoke, do not really exist in the sense of providing any objective standard; these are merely temporary vocabularies.

    With temporary meaning.

    the conservative challenge…has indecently broken up a nice party.

    Well then.

  54. sdferr says:

    Ceaser’s concluding paragraph (after much intervening analysis):

    The non-foundationalist position represents a utopian experiment that has as yet no basis in real political science. Nothing in experience suggests it could ever work, at least for a nation that is tasked with performing an important role on the stage of world history. Without a foundational principle, even more without the moral energy that derives from a concern for foundational principle, a community cannot exist in a deep or meaningful sense. And without this energy, a community would be unable to extract from its members the added measure of devotion and resolve that are needed for its survival and for undertaking any important projects. What is involved, ultimately, in the shift to non-foundationalism is an evacuation of what makes a nation. When the illusion of a genuine nation existing without foundations is finally acknowledged—if it is acknowledged—political life will return to the real political question: which is not whether to have a foundation, but rather, which one(s) to embrace and in what mixture. This conclusion only gets us back to where sensible political life begins, which is finding foundational remedies to the problem most incident to foundational thinking. On that ground, and that ground alone, let the polarization continue.

  55. Alec Leamas says:

    the conservative challenge…has indecently broken up a nice party.

    I’m like Keith Richards at the Cotillian.

  56. JHo says:

    Is there a link to that, sdferr?

  57. sdferr says:

    Lemme go rummage around and see JHo. brb

  58. JHo says:

    udaman.

  59. sdferr says:

    Here you go. takes to Entropy’s link, expect not a website, but a wordpad doc.

  60. JHo says:

    Thanks, sdferr.

  61. sdferr says:

    de nada

  62. TheNewGuy says:

    Medicare is one of the reasons there is so much cost-shifting in Medicine. Most hospitals either barely break even, or lose money on Medicare patients, and have to rely on the Aetna/BC/BS/UHC private payors to pick up the slack.

    If your payor mix sucks badly enough (tons of Medicare/caid, and not much private-pay), your hospital can easily go out of business.

    So not only do the illegals, Medicaid, and the uninsured take a free ride on the back of the insured… so do the Medicare patients in many places.

    Price controls don’t work… and we’re about to learn that.

  63. […] Gaia without all the carping is something I will never understand. Under the Big F*cker’s Big F*cking Deal, all manner of things will be […]