Income inequality at an all time high

[Lorax]

I wonder if Batts analyzes his navel as much as he does the definition/implications of altruism.

Oh, that's right, he doesn't have a navel.

[elganned]

So now I need to ask: Why did you go into medicine as a profession? To get rich?

[Lorax]

In Batts' case, it was obviously the chance at forming an LLC with his medical buddies so they can rip-off Medicare, and charge loan-shark attorney rates to see private patients.

It's sort of like when we as a family needed [[and wanted) to talk with my father's GP regarding his hospitalization, and had many questions, and he was busy golfing for a long weekend, leaving after my dad's hospitalization, and leaving us with no answers, since his staff and nurses deferred to the doctor, of course.

After his artery surgery, he had every "specialist" in the area drop by at 3 and 4 in the morning, leave their business card, and bill his insurance tens of thousands of dollars for looking at his medical chart, and determining that he didn't need their services. The system is a rip off, and a game set up to juice the insurance, period.

[ccbatson]

I went into medicine to be a highly productive individual providing exemplary quality service that is highly desired and needed for the purpose of generating as high an income as possible [[determined by market forces). Capitalism is what it is called, and it is the benefactor of prosperity.

[East Detroit]

Your understanding is far too shallow. Of course, an individual can choose to do something for someone else. However, there are 2 important and necessary definitions of altruism. One, that an individual's rational self interests are not the highest priority to that individual, and, two, that sacrificing that core value is virtuous. This allows for the concept of collectivism to require said sacrifice...that is slavery.

Opening a door for someone, giving a gift [[so long as it is not a sacrifice to do so) is not altruistic by the objectivist definition that I am employing.

Who cares what conjured definition you are using today? I certainly don't.

Once again you're displaying the same emotional non-reasoning and re-defining of well known facts that has exposed you as a lib.

Altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

Where does it say the person puts aside their own well being? Further, where does it say the person becomes a slave? Or are you putting people into categories of animal behaviorism? Once again, incorrect, if you are.

Guess what? Some people like to unselfishly help others. Many people dedicate their lives to putting the welfare of others first. And guess what else? They aren't slaves. They actually WANT to help others.

Now, if you can't relate, just admit it. If you think of pro bono work as slavery [[or just a write off) or If you picked your profession just to make cash and you don't care about people and would never put another's welfare before your own selfish needs, just admit it. Can't imagine such a person would be in a successful marriage or have kids. Or.... get along with others in a community.

[ccbatson]

Who cares? All rational and reasoning human beings should care.

[elganned]

So you're answer is, you're just in it for the money.

At least that's honest.

[edgewood]

Quote: Nowhere else on the planet is so much opportunity afforded an individual as here is the US. Those that do not take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

Yes, and a child going hungry builds "character".

[oladub]

I admire altruism but as I understand altruism, it is the voluntary giving of one's own time and poccessions from one's own understanding. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Just going into medicine would meet the second definition.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Coveting and theft are usually less altruistic. The following is copied but resonates with some thinking found in above posts.

1. How much of your income do I have a right to? Today, many talk openly about redistributing wealth. If you do not have a right to your first nickel, what legal or moral principle will protect your last?

2. Who is the greedier, the fellow who wants to keep what he has earned, or he who would take it away from him?

3. If it is wrong for me to take what is yours, is it wrong if I hire someone else to do it for me? What if that someone else is a politician or bureaucrat? Does having a majority back the theft change the moral character of that action?

4. How much is enough for our government to take from its citizens? Either in absolute dollars or percentages, please give me a number. Keep in mind that governments at all levels now take, in taxes, or imposes in costs, an amount equal to about 62% of our economy.[[Source: Americans for Tax Reform.)

[elganned]

I admire altruism but as I understand altruism, it is the voluntary giving of one's own time and poccessions from one's own understanding. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Just going into medicine would meet the second definition.

Possibly true for nursing, where the pay is not that good, but not true for doctors. Doctoring does not harm the doctor, and it is beneficial to the doctor by providing a large income.

Otherwise, auto mechanics are as altruistic as are doctors since they enter into behavior that is not beneficial to themselves in order to benefit others of their species.

More on the other questions later.

[Lorax]

What's forgotten here, is that altruism is voluntary, no one is "forcing" it on anyone, least of all the government. Either you are predisposed to being a good person, or not. Simple as that.

In the case of Batts, I am now going to have a litmus test for my doctors. I am really freaked out that someone in the medical profession is so completely crass and self-absorbed. Honesty aside, I don't want, nor will I go to a GP that expouses the mantra of "greed is good" and "I'm only here for myself and to juice your insurance". Not a good thing.

[oladub]

Possibly true for nursing, where the pay is not that good, but not true for doctors. Doctoring does not harm the doctor, and it is beneficial to the doctor by providing a large income.

Otherwise, auto mechanics are as altruistic as are doctors since they enter into behavior that is not beneficial to themselves in order to benefit others of their species.

More on the other questions later.

You don't know much about doctors. From what I have seen, doctoring does do harm to doctors. My daughter is a doctor as is her boyfriend. Let's go through it. GPA's have to be very good to be even considered for med school. That means not having such a good time in college. Dating and a lot of sociallizing are not a priority. Marriage is something that is very difficult to consider. If accepted, med school costs an extra $100k and at least three fewer years in the labor force. There are no summers off to make spending money. Three more years of intense study go by. Graduation, hurray! Next up, two years of residency working 85-95 hours a week for $35,000/year. Figuring overtime, that works out to minimum wages. The biggest cause of med student death is falling asleep at the wheel. Opportunities for dating, socializing, or sleep is still a bit limited . Finally, at about age 28, med students can enter the job market and start paying back some bills. The pay is good but their youth is largely gone. Finally, as real doctors, only about 60 hours of weekly work is required. Of course, this involves being paged to deliver babies in the middle of the night or while on a date. Doctors also pick up every sort of cold their patients bring in. My daughter is recovering from pulmonary embolism related to her doctor lifestyle. Warfarin, rat poison, allows her to work. Women doctors are less likely to marry and have kids for reasons already mentioned. Male doctors constitute the occupation, of the average, to lose their virility at the earliest age.

Can my daughter's boyfriend ever make it home for dinner on time? Seldom. As an internist, he is likely to get wrapped up in explaining things to a patient's relatives, doing leftover paperwork, or going through things with the next shift. After dinner, whenever, he goes into the bedroom and catches up wioth paperwork on the computer. Sometimes it doesn't matter because one of their pagers might have gone off. End of date before one or both fall asleep in a sitting position watching tv.

Both of these two I mentioned would welcome single payer health care particularly if they could live normal 40 hour a week jobs. They aren't after big bucks. Altuistic behavior for you might include embracing the resultant long waits for care under Obamacare.

Lorax, I agree with your definition and your right to choose a doctor using your own criteria. I also suggest not going to doctors who are not overworked in a show of solidarity.

[Lorax]

You don't know much about doctors. From what I have seen, doctoring does do harm to doctors. My daughter is a doctor as is her boyfriend. Let's go through it. GPA's have to be very good to be even considered for med school. That means not having such a good time in college. Dating and a lot of sociallizing are not a priority. Marriage is something that is very difficult to consider. If accepted, med school costs an extra $100k and at least three fewer years in the labor force. There are no summers off to make spending money. Three more years of intense study go by. Graduation, hurray! Next up, two years of residency working 85-95 hours a week for $35,000/year. Figuring overtime, that works out to minimum wages. The biggest cause of med student death is falling asleep at the wheel. Opportunities for dating, socializing, or sleep is still a bit limited . Finally, at about age 28, med students can enter the job market and start paying back some bills. The pay is good but their youth is largely gone. Finally, as real doctors, only about 60 hours of weekly work is required. Of course, this involves being paged to deliver babies in the middle of the night or while on a date. Doctors also pick up every sort of cold their patients bring in. My daughter is recovering from pulmonary embolism related to her doctor lifestyle. Warfarin, rat poison, allows her to work. Women doctors are less likely to marry and have kids for reasons already mentioned. Male doctors constitute the occupation, of the average, to lose their virility at the earliest age.

Can my daughter's boyfriend ever make it home for dinner on time? Seldom. As an internist, he is likely to get wrapped up in explaining things to a patient's relatives, doing leftover paperwork, or going through things with the next shift. After dinner, whenever, he goes into the bedroom and catches up wioth paperwork on the computer. Sometimes it doesn't matter because one of their pagers might have gone off. End of date before one or both fall asleep in a sitting position watching tv.

Both of these two I mentioned would welcome single payer health care particularly if they could live normal 40 hour a week jobs. They aren't after big bucks. Altuistic behavior for you might include embracing the resultant long waits for care under Obamacare.

Lorax, I agree with your definition and your right to choose a doctor using your own criteria. I also suggest not going to doctors who are not overworked in a show of solidarity.

I would be happy to stand with doctors in this regard, and look forward to doing so in the future. Calling a revamped health care system "Obamacare" is a little disingenuous- since deals have been cut with Big Pharma, and the AMA in the the run-up to any completed bill, which, as we know, is nowhere near finished.

Single payer is always the best way to go, just look to EU member nations. Doctors there don't have the added difficulties of running their own LLC's or private corporations as many do here in order to juice Medicare for all they can.

Knowing what you are going to make as income is a great position to be in, as long as the trade-off is job security with a government run health care system.

[elganned]

My daughter is a doctor as is her boyfriend. Let's go through it. GPA's have to be very good to be even considered for med school. That means not having such a good time in college. Dating and a lot of sociallizing are not a priority. Marriage is something that is very difficult to consider. If accepted, med school costs an extra $100k and at least three fewer years in the labor force. There are no summers off to make spending money. Three more years of intense study go by. Graduation, hurray! Next up, two years of residency working 85-95 hours a week for $35,000/year. Figuring overtime, that works out to minimum wages. The biggest cause of med student death is falling asleep at the wheel. Opportunities for dating, socializing, or sleep is still a bit limited . Finally, at about age 28, med students can enter the job market and start paying back some bills.

Up to this point, you largely describe the travails of becoming a doctor, not doctoring. If you complaint is with the medical education system, then that's where you should direct your efforts. That's an entirely different discussion.

The pay is good but their youth is largely gone. Finally, as real doctors, only about 60 hours of weekly work is required. Of course, this involves being paged to deliver babies in the middle of the night or while on a date. Doctors also pick up every sort of cold their patients bring in. My daughter is recovering from pulmonary embolism related to her doctor lifestyle. Warfarin, rat poison, allows her to work. Women doctors are less likely to marry and have kids for reasons already mentioned. Male doctors constitute the occupation, of the average, to lose their virility at the earliest age.

Can my daughter's boyfriend ever make it home for dinner on time? Seldom. As an internist, he is likely to get wrapped up in explaining things to a patient's relatives, doing leftover paperwork, or going through things with the next shift. After dinner, whenever, he goes into the bedroom and catches up wioth paperwork on the computer. Sometimes it doesn't matter because one of their pagers might have gone off. End of date before one or both fall asleep in a sitting position watching tv.

Difficult and distressing for them, but they are compensated for their efforts. They aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. I know factory workers who put in 60+ hour weeks--or did, before the economy went south--for less than half of the compensation enjoyed by doctors; last figures I heard were the average primary-care physician makes $200K per year, average specialist $400K per year. All the hardships you describe can be lumped under "occupational hazards", which are undertaken in the knowledge of high rewards. Practicing medicine isn't like running into a burning building with a hose, which is literally putting your life on the line to benefit others.

Both of these two I mentioned would welcome single payer health care particularly if they could live normal 40 hour a week jobs.

So long as they make the same money, that is.

They aren't after big bucks.

"Big bucks" is a relative term. I know a lot of people for whom $60K a year would be "big bucks". I doubt your daughter and/or her boyfriend would agree.

Altuistic behavior for you might include embracing the resultant long waits for care under Obamacare.

The long waits for care are a direct result of the shortage of doctors, not a function of who pays for your care. If the medical education system could be overhauled--something I agree with you is abominable--then we'd have many more doctors and far fewer waits, regardless of who is paying the bill.

I do not wish to denigrate your daughter or her boyfriend; for all I know they did go into medicine for altruistic reasons. But to say that all doctors are altruists by definition is casting the net far too widely. Our own Ccbatson is one of the exceptions that disproves the general assertion; he's already said he's only in it for the money.

And I'm sure he's not alone.

[oladub]

Up to this point, you largely describe the travails of becoming a doctor, not doctoring. If you complaint is with the medical education system, then that's where you should direct your efforts. That's an entirely different discussion.Difficult and distressing for them, but they are compensated for their efforts. They aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. I know factory workers who put in 60+ hour weeks--or did, before the economy went south--for less than half of the compensation enjoyed by doctors; last figures I heard were the average primary-care physician makes $200K per year, average specialist $400K per year. All the hardships you describe can be lumped under "occupational hazards", which are undertaken in the knowledge of high rewards. Practicing medicine isn't like running into a burning building with a hose, which is literally putting your life on the line to benefit others.So long as they make the same money, that is. "Big bucks" is a relative term. I know a lot of people for whom $60K a year would be "big bucks". I doubt your daughter and/or her boyfriend would agree.The long waits for care are a direct result of the shortage of doctors, not a function of who pays for your care. If the medical education system could be overhauled--something I agree with you is abominable--then we'd have many more doctors and far fewer waits, regardless of who is paying the bill.

I do not wish to denigrate your daughter or her boyfriend; for all I know they did go into medicine for altruistic reasons. But to say that is casting the net far too widely. Our own Ccbatson is one of the exceptions that disproves the general assertion; he's already said he's only in it for the money.

And I'm sure he's not alone.

I wasn't claiming that doctors 'all doctors are altruists by definition' and I know you weren't denigrating anyone specifically except Bats. However, I suspect that most doctors are aware of the occupational hazards that deserve some extra compensation. I would extend my generalization to most of my daughters friends in med school though. The majority of new doctors are female these days. My subjective take on them is that I never met one who was big on materialism. Loving their work seemed like their primary driving force. If doctors did work only 40 hours a week, there would immediatlely be something like a one-third further reduction of doctors. Ontario, by the way, decided to cut medical costs by reducing the number of med students. This has caused additional waits there.

Do your numbers include or exclude liability insurance? Screwing up one's potential social life, family life, and health and putting off an earnings should be compensated for of course. Also, a good many more people are able to be fireman or fireladies who do not have to go to school for 9 years after high school and qualify with near genius and above IQ's and near 4.0 GPA's earniong B.S. degrees. Just my guess, but I'll bet a lot of doctors would settle for $80,000/year, after paying for liability insurance, in return for a guaranteed 8-4:30 Monday-Friday schedule.

I assume that some doctors aren't showing up at work out of interest in their work or altruism but while Lorax is out looking for a doctor with a good heart, I will be looking for the most competent doctor. To each his own.

[elganned]

I wasn't claiming that doctors 'all doctors are altruists by definition'

With all due respect, you did exactly that. I refer you to your post #109:

2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Just going into medicine would meet the second definition.

Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but it is what you wrote.

The majority of new doctors are female these days. My subjective take on them is that I never met one who was big on materialism. Loving their work seemed like their primary driving force.

Our views are probably not far apart on this point, if at all. It has been my experience [[with the exception of Bats) that most medical professionals--doctors, nurses, midwives, etc.--entered the health care field because they wanted to help people.

If doctors did work only 40 hours a week, there would immediatlely be something like a one-third further reduction of doctors.

Again, I feel this is a function of medical education. The AMA stranglehold on med schools almost guarantees an [[artificial?) shortage of doctors. The medical education system drastically needs reforming, not just the health care delivery system.

Ontario, by the way, decided to cut medical costs by reducing the number of med students. This has caused additional waits there.

A short-sighted policy if ever I heard one. Whoever voted for it should have a pressure cuff wrapped around their head hooked up to a gasoline-powered pneumatic pump.

Do your numbers include or exclude liability insurance?

I can't honestly say. I only heard the raw numbers, not what the details.

Just my guess, but I'll bet a lot of doctors would settle for $80,000/year, after paying for liability insurance, in return for a guaranteed 8-4:30 Monday-Friday schedule.

Which I wouldn't have a problem with at all.

[Lorax]

I disagree that "putting off earnings" as well as a personal life should be compensated for.

To the contrary.

Those who enter the profession, like most professions, do it by choice. No one twisted anyone's arm into becoming a doctor. What ever the consequences of that decision is just the breaks.

A worker in a stamping plant who loses a hand in a piece of machinery deserves compensation for a loss related to the job.

The problem is the structuring of the educational system with regard to the medical professions. The costs of school alone should be paid for by the federal government, as it is in the rest of the industrialized world. Japanese, as well as European nations will provide a Phd level education to their citizens, provided they have the grades to qualify.

We are so far behind the curve of other nations, who look at us and scratch their heads wondering why we are so hung-up on bullshit like paying for an education, providing health care to our citizens, or even subsidizing elections.

More malevolent nations like China will use this against us eventually, and we will have only ourselves to blame, since we were so preoccupied with looking like "socialists" or "communists" in the eyes of a fraction of our socially retarded voting population.

[elganned]

Well then, the socialists should then tax the shit out of the rich bitches and leave them with just enough to live on. Screw those bastards who are smart and work hard to earn a lot of money.
I am so jealous and envious of those arrogant snobs, they should them give the money to the democrats so they can then distribute it to all the poor fat people with diseases.

Your obviously exaggerated statements rest on several assumptions, none of which has been established as true:

1) That socialists are inclined to tax rich people down to subsistence levels.
2) That all who have money have worked hard to earn it.
3) That all who have money have it only because they worked hard to earn it.
4) That proposed taxation is based upon envy.
5) That the democrats want to take all the money from the rich.
6) That the democrats would then give all the money to fat people with diseases.
7) That all poor folks are fat and have diseases.

Really, you should take some formal logic classes before you stick your foot in your mouth like that. You might end up with some poor fat persons disease like hoof-and-mouth, and then where would you be?

[cheddar bob]

I was tongue in cheek if you did not notice.
I never said all, but the democrats play on class envy and jealousy, that's their stock in trade.
If you are rich in Hollywood, or are a liberal then it is ok, the libs won't attack you.

hahaha, you have to work hard so all of us liberals can sit on our fat asses and receive the benefits of your labor. Suck it.

[oladub]

elganned, You are right about my statement with reference to the second definition of altruism in post 109. From a societal perspective being a doctor would meet definition #2. I suspect though that some doctors are in it for the money even if they meet the criteria of definition #2. I agree that training more medical students would be desirable along supply demand lines to reduce costs.

Just to further promote the idea of $80,000 salaries for 40 hours of work as an option: If doctors now work 60 hours a week, with time and a half for anything over 40 hours, a 60 hour work week would be $140,000/year, so you are sort of agreeing that $140,000/year for a 60 hour workweek would be ok by union rules which is approaching the $200,000 figure you earlier mentioned. According to this link, for cross reference, the average family physician in Canada earned $211,000[[C) in 2005-2006. http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/...physician.html

Lorax, Should professional athletes be paid more than factory workers? Should professors with doctorates be paid more than college janitors? Why? What do you think doctors should be allowed to make per year if they cut back to 40 hours a week? Why?

We could do like some in Sweden are said to do. When a certain income is attained after three or forut months of work, its time to head for some southern tropical paradise. After all, doesn't it make more sense to spend the balance of the year enjoying the company of dusky maidens than dealing with alarm clocks, slush, and bureaucrats who loot 90% of one's paycheck once earnings exceed a certain amount?

Noone answered the questions at the botom of my post #109 either. Sigh...

[Lorax]

The problem is not so much the amount of taxation as how it's spent. The military industrial complex among other waste in our government, if diverted could alone pay for socialized health care [[Medicare for all).

That said, I'm not here to expouse how much someone's labor is worth. However, I am inclined to think we need to value our educators, our police, firefighters, and yes, doctors more than we do sports figures, who, in my opinion are grossly overpaid for what they do.

Just because someone chooses to become a doctor, and accepts the sacrifices that go along with it, doesn't mean the value of what they do is any greater than a police officer or firefighter who put themselves in harm's way everyday to protect and save the lives of others.

When medicine became a path to riches is when it went wrong.

When Dr. Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine while working on a 12,000 grant from the federal government, he was under no obligation to turn it over to the government- he could have profited off it and become a billionaire.

He chose to turn it over to the government, since that was the fastest way to get it into the pipline and save lives.

This man was a true hero. A selfless patriot of the first order, unlike the doctors who envision their accepted years of "sacrifice" as something akin to finiding a pot of gold.

[oladub]

Lorax: "I am inclined to think we need to value our educators, our police, firefighters, and yes, doctors more than we do sports figures, who, in my opinion are grossly overpaid for what they do."

Even the City of Green Bay, which owns the socialist Packers, pays capitalist salaries to get good players. Canada, according to my previous link does pay good salaries to it doctors - way more than "our educators, our police, firefighters" receive. What professional athletes and doctors have in common is that they are difficult to replace because 96% of the population has neither the athletic ability of pro atheletes or the brains of ordinary doctors. Maybe 50% of the population has the ability to get through Teachers' college but only 4% have the ability to get through med school. Add an extra four five years of privation. What about $80,000/year after liability insurance for GP's working 8-4:30 shifts? Does that sound like too much to you? Even Canadian doctors make more - single payer system and all.

Do the elected representatives you vote for return their very generous government pensions? Mine does.

Well paid socialist Packer outpacing well paid capitalist Lions.

[ccbatson]

Market forces don't hinge on fulfilling needs, they hinge on generating revenue for the entity concerned.

[Lorax]

Even the City of Green Bay, which owns the socialist Packers, pays capitalist salaries to get good players. Canada, according to my previous link does pay good salaries to it doctors - way more than "our educators, our police, firefighters" receive. What professional athletes and doctors have in common is that they are difficult to replace because 96% of the population has neither the athletic ability of pro atheletes or the brains of ordinary doctors. Maybe 50% of the population has the ability to get through Teachers' college but only 4% have the ability to get through med school. Add an extra four five years of privation. What about $80,000/year after liability insurance for GP's working 8-4:30 shifts? Does that sound like too much to you? Even Canadian doctors make more - single payer system and all.

Do the elected representatives you vote for return their very generous government pensions? Mine does.

Well paid socialist Packer outpacing well paid capitalist Lions.

And your asking if I have a problem with 80k for a doctor's salary? Well, no, I don't.

What I do have a problem with are the doctors who juice the Medicare system at every turn, order unnecessary tests, or, as in the case of my father, send in "specialists" at 3 and 4 AM to his room to look at his chart and leave a business card- then juice his insurance for 30,000.00 extra in unnecessary "visits."

These doctors are making millions from juicing the system through illegal referrals and bilking not only Medicare, but private insurance as well.

Get a grip, the system is broken, it's eating it's own tail, and will collapse from it's own greed before much longer, much as Wall Street did.

Medicare for all, please.

[ccbatson]

How is it a question for anyone other than the individual themselves to question the income of another private individual?