Many doctors plan to quit or cut back: survey

Regarding your first point, I bought a 1928 surgery text as part of my office decor. (I like the look of old books). While there are some things in it that no one would do the same way now, it’s remarkable how much has not changed in all that time.

As to the second point, I think the poster’s complaint had to do with the NP’s people skills, not her education in chemistry.

Some things might not change for a very, very long time. I’m in radiogrpahy school now; did you know that x-ray production is just as inefficient today as it was in 1895?

Read the rest of the last paragraph I responded too: in addition to the people skills, the poster mentioned science backgrounds.

That is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it gmarie. I work in the insurance business, and we see many docs dropping their medical malpractice insurance (or procedures that they used to offer) because the costs are so high. They are high because it’s largely driven by the lawsuits that are reported by docs offices yearly…and if docs are very careful and have less claims, their rates will go down. It’s sad though that so many docs are leaving PA and FL–these are two of the highest med mal states.:frowning:

We have to keep praying for our country’s future, everyone. While things look bleak, God always has control, and He will provide the answers.

I know a girl who is in medschool and is going into radiology and she is very good at math. She’s in a top 30 med school and gets all As. She often tells me how difficult the material is. A lot of kids fail out. You deffinatly need to know a lot of chemistry. I think there probably is too much of a math requirement.

I spoke to a surgeon not too long ago. He’d started out in the city, for years he worked unbelievable hours. He said when he got done with one patient, he cleaned up and walked straight into the next room for the following one.

I believe he is in his 50’s now, he has moved to a local town and although he still stays really busy compared to most people, its nothing like it was in the city.

I do not remember the details of the story, although I’m sure he made a decent salary, he spent most of his life in the operating room.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further? If you are saying plain x-rays are not a lot more enlightening now than then, I would be tempted to agree, based on what little they seem to tell physicians except in a narrow range of cases. But it seems you might be saying more than that.

I am saying more and I apologize if I was vague. 99% of the energy produced in the original x-ray tubes was heat with less than 1% being x-rays; the same still holds true today.

Actually x-rays tell physicians more then we seem to understand, compared to 110 years ago.

At the risk of seeming to bug you (and of wandering off topic) what do you mean by “more than we seem to understand”?

Legal billing is less complicated as far as keeping track of the billable hours and sending the bill directly to the client. However, getting paid in a timely manner is a problem for both types of practices. What lawyers and doctors have in common in this area is that most of us don’t like the “business” side of the profession. I don’t know anyone who went to med or law school saying that they were looking forward to sending collection services after their clients/patients so that they can pay their own bills.

Most lawyers I know don’t send bills to collection. Malpractice carriers will raise the premiums if you do, because a suit to collect for legal services so frequently results in a counterclaim for malpractice that the insurer has to defend. It’s a lot easier to make a claim for legal malpractice, since lawyers are not protected by the tort reforms recently enacted to protect medical providers, and so much of legal decisionmaking is based on judgment rather than testing, etc.

But indisputably, medical billing is much more complicated.

“I can visualize 3 dimensional objects in my mind, but when speaking with some people at school I found it interesting that they could not do something that I thought was a fairly basic and natural ability for everyone. It reminds me of an attorney I worked with who could not reverse driving directions in his head. I thought that was a commonly held ability and it isn’t.”

Wow! I would have thought that would be basic to anyone who is trying to “reverse engineer” his opponent’s thinking. I wonder whether that’s peculiar to lawyers or is perhaps due to lack of exposure, early in life, to the necessity of figuring out spatial relationships on a frequent basis. That could be an urban phenomenon. I have often been amazed at the inability of both physicians and lawyers (including judges) to be able to figure out what people actually DO in industrial settings, and how that affects them. I have generally assumed that was a result of most physicians’ and lawyers’ having been raised in suburban environments.

If not for such a messed up insurance system, this would sort itself out.

Less general practice doctors? Those still there charge more, as they are in higher demand, and then more doctors would head that way, as there is now money to be made there.

Too many in specialized areas? Must charge less to get business, as there is a higher supply, and less doctors would head that way, as there is less money to be made there

However, the insurance companies make it such that people generally don’t really mind how much things cost, as they pay such a minor portion of it anyways.

The fact that we need insurance for a annual check up is ridiculous. Do you file a claim after you get the oil changed in your car? I doubt it. Insurance is in case something goes wrong. It is in case something unexpected happens.

In many places, you really can’t get “catastrophic-only” coverage, with large deductibles and very unlikely conditions excluded. It could be said that a big segment of the overall cost is for routine care and coverages that are state-mandated.

One thing that particularly irks me is that, as a small business, I have to have the same coverage my employees have. I can’t have LESS coverage. I would much prefer to fund a medical savings account and have a very high deductible. But I can’t, because my employees can’t live with the high deductible and it’s “discriminatory” for me to have less coverage under the same plan. There are minimum numbers of people to have any kind of group policy, so many employers are forced to carry more coverage (and pay for it) than they might want for themselves. Since a lot of employers are older than many of their employees, they have to pay for more coverage than they really need, given that they could afford a bigger portion of their own costs themselves.

I have one employee who has a serotonin-uptake problem, but has been totally stable for 20 years. Since her Prozac is now generic, it would be much cheaper for me to buy her Prozac generic than it is for me to pay her up-rated premiums. When I tried to do that, I found that, oh no, she had to have coverage for mental illness. Couldn’t be waived due to state law. Since she takes medication for it, of course, her premium portion is considerably higher than it would have otherwise been.

If demand goes up and supply goes down, those of us without insurance will be squeezed even more. I already only go to the doctor when it’s an emergency, I don’t really know how I can cut my ‘use’ of the medical system down anymore.

My cousin does a high deductible plan for his small business and puts a large amt of the deductible in HSA for all of his employees.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit