Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

Why You Want the Government Running Health, Education and Defense

18 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Unlike the public sector, the private sector is bred for efficiency. Left to its own devices, it will always find the means to provide services faster, cheaper, and more effectively than will governments. ---James Jay Carafano, Private Sector, Public Wars

I suspect the vast majority of Americans would agree with Mr. Carafano. They probably consider the statement self-evident. The facts, however, lead to the opposite conclusion. When not handicapped by regulations designed to subsidize the private sector, the public sector often provides services faster, cheaper and more effectively.

Consider the results of recent privatization initiatives in three key sectors: health, education and national defense.

Health

Alone among all industrialized nations, the US relies on private for profit insurance companies to manage its health care system. The result? The US has by far the most expensive health care system in the world both in total cost and as a percentage of GDP.

But we don't have to look abroad to evaluate the comparative costs of private and public health systems. Consider Medicare.

Small privatization efforts under Medicare began in the 1980s but did not become full-borne until 1997 when the Republican Congress, with the support of President Clinton, created Medicare+Choice. Secure in their faith that the private is always superior to the public the Republicans agreed to a program in which private insurers would receive the same amount as the service cost under Medicare.

health-as-percent-of-gdpfull-size.png

The public sector proved uncompetitive. Private insurers began pulling out en masse. In 2000, more than 900,000 patients were dropped from the Medicare+Choice program.

No one should have been surprised. Private insurers have a huge handicap. Their overhead costs-marketing, profits, etc.—dwarf those of Medicare: slightly under 17 percent compared to about 5 percent for Medicare.

How did the Republican Party react to this real world challenge to their foundational belief in the efficiencies inherent in a private enterprise system? They changed the rules. Having proven unable to win in a fair fight, private insurers were now given a handsome subsidy when Medicare Advantage replaced Medicare+Choice. The federal government now pays private insurers on average 14 percent more per member than the same care would cost under traditional Medicare.

The huge subsidy allowed private insurers not only to make a profit but to offer some low cost goodies, like membership to gyms, Medicare doesn't offer. Today, about 8.5 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide are enrolled in some form of private Medicare plan—nearly 20 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.

percent-overhead-in-insurance.jpg

Astonishingly, having proven that private health insurance costs more Republicans have now made the further privatization of Medicare the centerpiece of their budget deficit plan. Instead of directly insuring seniors their new plan would have the government give them a voucher to buy private insurance. The government would save money because the value of the vouchers would rise at a slower rate than health care costs.

New Yorker business writer James Surowiecki sums up the conclusions of an analysis of the plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, "seniors would have to spend more and more of their income on private insurance and out-of-pocket expenses, or go without… Ryan's plan would actually increase the amount of money Americans spend on health care, since private insurers aren't as good at curbing costs as Medicare. But taxpayers would pay less."

Education

In 1958, the federal government established a student loan program. The federal Treasury made the loan directly. In 1965, as part of his Great Society initiative, LBJ wanted to dramatically expand the program, but ran up against budget rules that discriminated against direct lending. A direct loan showed up as a total loss in the year it was made, even though most of it would be paid back with interest in future years. A guaranteed loan, on the other hand, which placed the full faith and credit of the United States behind a private bank loan, would appear to have no up front budget cost at all because the government's payments for defaults and interest subsidies would not occur until later years.

Knowing that a major direct loan program would show up as increasing a deficit already growing because of the expanding Vietnam War, the Democratic Congress opted to replace direct loans from the government with bank loans guaranteed by the government.

For the next 27 years, the direct loan program disappeared. Finally, in 1990 Congress eliminated the unfair rules. The new unbiased regulations led the Bush Administration to conclude that direct loans would be less costly and simpler to administer. In 1992, Congress created a direct lending pilot program. In 1993, President Clinton proposed replacing the guarantee program with direct loans as part of his own deficit reduction plan.

But in 1994 Republicans took over the House of Representatives. And as conservatives are wont to do, they refused to let facts get in the way of ideology. Led by Newt Gingrich, they tried to completely eliminate direct lending. To their surprise, college and university, frustrated by a guaranteed loan system the Government Accountability Office labeled a "complicated, cumbersome process" involving thousands of middlemen, fought back.

Ultimately, Congress stopped short of eliminating direct lending. Instead, it prohibited the Department of Education from encouraging colleges to switch to the direct loan program. Even without such encouragement, colleges recognized a good deal when they saw one and began shifting to direct loans. By 1998, about 35 percent of all student loans were direct loans from the government.

The private sector, having tasted the profits of guaranteed loans, fought back, led by Sallie Mae, the former Student Loan Marketing Agency. Set up in 1972 as a non-profit, government sponsored enterprise (GRE) supervised by the US Treasury, in 1997 Sallie Mae obtained Congressional approval to privatize. That allowed it to originate its own loans and acquire other companies. The new private profit making company quickly bought out its two major rival.

Sallie Mae also purchased student loan collection companies. By 2006 it dominated all aspects of the student loan industry. According to CBS News, in 2005 nearly a fifth of its revenue came from collection agencies. Sallie Mae's fee income increased by 228 percent between 2000 and 2005, from $280 million to $920 million while its stock price increased 1,600 percent from 1995 to 2005.

Colleges began to shift back to guaranteed loans. Wondering why they would do so to the detriment of their students, U.S. News and World Report investigated. It found that private lenders were supplying college official with free meals and drinks, golf outings and sailboat cruises. "Lenders offer the prospect of millions of dollars in profits to universities—if they drop out of the Education Department's direct-loan plan."

A 2006-2007 investigation by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo uncovered a pattern of kickbacks and bribes to universities.

Private lenders worked not only to maximize their share of the market but to maximize their profits from each loan by changing the rules. U.S. News and World Report noted, the student loan industry "used money and favors, along with their friends in Congress and the Department of Education, to get what they wanted."

In 1998, Congress allowed massive penalties and fees to be imposed on delinquent student loans, making it more profitable for the lenders and guarantors when students defaulted than when they repaid the loan on time. Congress also allowed for collection rates of up to 25 percent to be applied to the debt.

taxpayer-cost-or-benefit-in-loan1.jpg

In 1999, lawmakers created a new interest-rate formula that boosted the lenders profits.

Student loans were specifically exempted from state usury laws and from coverage under the Truth in Lending Act.

Adding insult to injury, in 2005, the private lenders convinced Congress to make all student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The loss to the taxpayers ran into the tens of billions of dollars. The loss to students may have run even higher.

In 2005 the Congressional Budget Office compared the impact on taxpayers of a guaranteed loan and a direct loan. For every $1 of loan guarantee the federal government incurred taxpayers lost 15 cents. For every $1 loans made directly by the federal government, taxpayers made 2 cents.

On a $3,000 student loan repaid in 10 years, the CBO estimated the cost to taxpayer for a guaranteed loan would be $450. A direct loan, however, would benefit taxpayers by $63.

The 2008 elections gave us a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. In 2010, they ended 40 years of giveaways to the private sector and eliminated the guarantee loan program. Today all federal student loans are direct loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this will generate almost $68 billion in savings over the next ten years.

Military

As early as the late 1970s the federal government began contracting out but privatization took center stage with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's Reinventing Government initiative.

From then on politicians would boast about how much they had reduced federal payrolls while at the same time avoiding the unpleasant fact that on their watch the number of private contractors had increased even faster.

The Pentagon embraced privatization most eagerly, contracting out for a wide variety of services, including weapons engineering, security enforcement, training, tech support, food and outfitting management, and even frontline military strength to a new entity, the Private Military Company (PMC).

Secretary of Defense William Cohen led the effort. "During the summer of 1997 he assembled a committee that included leading executives from private industry to offer their wisdom about the road ahead", Duke law professor Laura Dickinson writes in Outsourcing War & Peace. "Cohen then proceeded to pursue a reform path that aimed to modernize defense by embracing the rhetoric, practices, and methodologies of American businesses. This embrace is perhaps most apparent in his Defense Reform Initiative, which he launched in the fall of 1997 as an effort to 'aggressively apply to the Department those business practices that American industry has successfully used to become leaner and more flexible in order to remain competitive.'"

The Pentagon has always employed contractors for specialized functions that were not large in scope and not fundamental to regular military operations. This changed in the early 1990s. Peter Singer writes, "In 1992 a relatively little-known, Texas-based oil services firm called Halliburton was awarded a $3.9 million Pentagon contract. Its task was to write a classified report on how private companies, like itself, could support the logistics of U.S. military deployments into countries with poor infrastructure. … it is hard to imagine that either the company or the client realized that 15 years later this contract (now called the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program or LOGCAP) would be worth as much as $150 billion."

The number of private military contractors soared, exceeding by 1999 the total combined number of active military troops, civilian employees, reserves and National Guards.

private-contracts-outpacing-public.jpg

The result? An unmitigated mess. Contracts were shoveled out the door so fast the military lacked even basic information about the burgeoning force of private contractors. This was clearly evident when Congress asked the Army how many contract service workers it had. The Army's answer? Somewhere between 124,000 and 605,000!

Did privatization save money? Usually not. One Congressional study found that contracts for intelligence support cost, on average, almost twice as much as in-house work.

Almost all of today's logistics firms operate under "cost-plus" contracts—a structure ripe for abuse.

But privatizing the military has cost us more than just money. As Maj Kevin P. Stiens and Lt. Col. (Ret.) Susan L. Turley observed, "Not only did the cost savings fail to materialize, outsourcing caused other tangible losses. The government lost personnel experience and continuity, along with operational control, by moving to contractors."

Walter Pincus opined in the Washington Post, "Particularly frustrating for organizations that require specialized expertise and experience, such as intelligence agencies, are organic personnel who leave for better pay with contractors after the government has trained them, obtained their security clearances, and given them experience…The government pays to get the worker qualified, then ends up leasing back … former employees."

Our national security now depends on millions of workers with divided loyalties. "Private employees have distinctly different motivations, responsibilities and loyalties than those in the public military, Air Force Colonel Steven Zamperelli writes, "[T]hey are hired, fired, promoted, demoted, rewarded and disciplined by the management of their private company, not by government officials or the public."

"The privatized military industry introduces very real contractual dilemmas into the realm of international security", Peter Singer maintains, "For governments, the public good and the good of the private companies are not identical … [and] these two parties' interests will never exactly coincide."

In 2008 at least 12 U.S. soldiers were accidentally electrocuted inside their bases in Iraq. Later it was discovered that the private contractor, KBR, knew there were potentially serious electrical problems in the facility's construction. But its contract didn't cover "fixing potential hazards." It only required repairing items already broken!

Singer offers another reason many are concerned about our increasing reliance on private contractors, "Many worry that the lack of control due to outsourcing could weigh even heavier and even put an entire military operation at risk. Consider what happened during the 2004 Sadr uprising, where a spike in attacks on convoys caused many companies to either withdraw or suspend operations, causing fuel and ammunition stocks to dwindle."

It may be too late to turn the clock back on private military companies so long as government officials boast about reducing the size of the federal workforce while actually increasing it and lack the political courage to reinstitute a draft that would bring troop and troop support levels back to where they need to be.

Nevertheless, the pendulum seems to be swinging back. For the first time in 30 years, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act encouraged what has come to be known as "insourcing", bringing back in house tasks that have been outsourced. Stiens and Turley drily assert, "one of the primary benefits of insourcing is to undo outsourcing efforts that brought neither cost savings nor improved mission performance."

So there we have it. Three disparate examples of privatization, all leading to the same conclusion. Privatization hurts. Unlike the public sector, the private sector is bred to maximize profits. Left to its own devices, it will always find a more profitable way to provide services even when that means increasing their cost, reducing their effectiveness and endangering the national security.

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project. You can follow David at defendingthepublicgood.org.

Edited by 8TBVBN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Steven, your article fails miserably on the idea of trying to tie in insurance to health care.

Insurance and health care are two different entities. You purchase one for assistance to pay for the other if you need it. The US does not "rely on for-profit insurance companies" to manage its health care. Individuals choose to obtain insurance as a means to help pay for thier health care if they need it.

Of course, why is health care itself so expensive? Take no further look than programs like medicare and medicaid that are GOVERNMENT programs that fail to pay doctors, technicians, hospitals, etc. their actual health care costs and a lot of times deny claims more than all insurance companies out there combined.

The left likes to pin-point blame on people who use hospitals without paying, yet they refuse to look at the fact that just as those people might be guilty, medicare and medicaid are guilty of not giving enough of a payout for the procedures that are billed to them. It's why so many doctors year after year continue to DROP medicare and medicaid coverage. It's not because they are "evil," it's because they cannot afford to take in those patients who will cause them to lose money. It's the same way you are denied without proper insurance or cash up front at many offices.

Of course the Emergency Room is a bit different thanks to the law. The laws says that people must be treated regardless of their ability to pay in the emergency room. In turn THE GOVERNMENT has created a system in which people will go in, not pay, and leave the hospital or the rest of us with the tab. This wasn't a problem created by doctors, it wasn't a problem created by insurance companies, it was a proble solely created by THE GOVERNMENT.

You can get on your damn high horse of ignorance on the glory of government run health care all you want, but it's the GOVERNMENT that has destroyed this country's health care, not the private sector. It's the GOVERNMENT who disallows competition on pharmaceuticals. It's the GOVERNMENT that denies selling of health insurance across state lines. It's the GOVERNMENT that allows lawyers to run amok with malpractice lawsuits.

You'd do well to remember that. Every one of the problems we have in the modern health care industry in regards to cost, has everything to do with the GOVERNMENT.

Government is not the solution. Government IS THE PROBLEM.

Get a clue.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Taiwan
Timeline

Yeah, Paul is right. The insurance lobbyists have not influenced the dysfunction in our health care system one bit. The poor doctors can't survive on a paltry half million dollars a year. How would they eat? The conservative media don't brainwash the hicks to think that gummint healthcare is only for commies and hippies. After all, there are thousands of old people in Canada and Britain being left to die in the streets.

As fellow white, male TEXAN... I salute guys like Paul. You're not stupid. But you play one on VJ. You spill the propaganda like glittery vomit. It is quite amazing, actually. I actually agree with you on a couple of things. I guess the lobotomy was successful...

The law says that emergency rooms must treat people BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Remember compassion? Empathy? Of course not. We have lost those instincts. Too busy worshiping at the altar of the true god here in the greatest country in the world. The almighty dollar. Do you think we could keep that title if we started doing what your endgame proposes? It's not the gummint, after all... we elect them. The enemy is us. Be honest. You are a TEXAN. Act like one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Yeah, Paul is right. The insurance lobbyists have not influenced the dysfunction in our health care system one bit. The poor doctors can't survive on a paltry half million dollars a year. How would they eat? The conservative media don't brainwash the hicks to think that gummint healthcare is only for commies and hippies. After all, there are thousands of old people in Canada and Britain being left to die in the streets.

As fellow white, male TEXAN... I salute guys like Paul. You're not stupid. But you play one on VJ. You spill the propaganda like glittery vomit. It is quite amazing, actually. I actually agree with you on a couple of things. I guess the lobotomy was successful...

The law says that emergency rooms must treat people BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Remember compassion? Empathy? Of course not. We have lost those instincts. Too busy worshiping at the altar of the true god here in the greatest country in the world. The almighty dollar. Do you think we could keep that title if we started doing what your endgame proposes? It's not the gummint, after all... we elect them. The enemy is us. Be honest. You are a TEXAN. Act like one.

Oh where to start with you.

You do realize not every doctor makes hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, right? Actually most don't make this half-million pipe dream that some do. Even if they do end up making a pretty penny, what's wrong with that? Did they not spend a decade educating themselves and continue to do so every day? Did they not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education? Did they not survive through internships not making anything, residencies making enough money to scrape by, and then maybe if they're lucky they become good enough to make a pretty penny? Oh the horror of working your butt off and making a good living. No, we can't have that, now can we?

On your, "RIGHT THING TO DO/Empathy" tirade, that's your opinion. The last time I checked however, this is the United States of America. The last time I checked YOU have the ability to do to school, put in the time these doctors did, you have the ability to open up your own hospital, etc. - You see, that's the beautiful part about the United States. You can open a "for-profit" hospital, OR you can open a charitable hospital. That is your Choice.

Apparently though, you'd rather play dictator because of what you think is morally right or empathetic, or the "right thing to do" and dictate to hospitals who they must treat and take care of, regardless of the cost to them. So it's ok to screw one person over (actually a lot more than just one) just so long as someone else is getting helped at the end of the day.

A TRUE - TEXAN, believes in LIBERTY above all else. You'd do right to remember that as you seem to have let your emotional wrap up in taking care of your neighbor lead you down a path of dictatorship. As I said, no one is stopping you from doing what you preach, but I highly doubt you do or are willing to do so. It's really easy to tell someone else what to do and control them though, isn't it?


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Andorra
Timeline

A TRUE - TEXAN, believes in LIBERTY above all else. You'd do right to remember that as you seem to have let your emotional wrap up in taking care of your neighbor lead you down a path of dictatorship. As I said, no one is stopping you from doing what you preach, but I highly doubt you do or are willing to do so. It's really easy to tell someone else what to do and control them though, isn't it?

So do you consider yourself a Texan first, and an American second?


Indy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

Somehow the idea of professionals undergoing continuous education in their fields is a concept ironically lost on many here that seem to self-elevate to the status of expertise in those same fields without an apparent smudge of education in those same areas of study. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
You do realize not every doctor makes hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, right?

Cry me a river, why don't you? In the grand scheme of things, MDs are doing well in this country and we're all footing the bill.

image.jpg

* Allergy - Immunology: $217,000 - $256,000

* Anesthesiology: $195,657 - $306,227

* Cardiology: $268,000 - $811,000 ($403,000)

* Cardiothoracic Surgery: $351,108 - $852,000

* Dentistry: $142,870

* Dermatology: $195,000 - $452,000 ($308,000)

* Emergency Medicine: $135,287 - $224,144

* Endocrinology: $171,000 - $260,000 ($187,000)

* E.N.T. Surgeon: $194,000 - $516,000 ($311,000)

* Environmental Medicine: $170,000 - $202,000

* Family Practice: $112,840 - $156,461

* Gastroenterology: $278,000 - $319,000

* Geriatrics: $155,000 - $181,000

* General Surgery: $152,605 - $296,328

* Hematology / Oncology: $181,348 - 685,000 ($245,000)

* Infectious Disease: $168,000 - $200,000

* Internal Medicine: $120,051 - $179,740

* Neonatology: $215,000 - $255,000

* Nephrology: $191,000 - $447,000 ($269,000)

* Neurology: $180,000 - $345,000 ($228,000)

* Neuroradiologist Salaries: $200,000 - $410,250

* Neurosurgery: $354,000 - $936,000 ($541,000)

* Nuclear Medicine Salaries: $250,000 - $285,000

* Obstetrics + Gynecology: $159,000 - $417,000 ($261,000)

* Occupational Medicine: $170,000 - $202,000

* Ophthalmologist: $138,000 - $716,000 ($314,000)

* Orthopedics: $228,000 - $1,352,000 ($459,000)

* Pathology: $155,000 - $210,000

* Pediatrics: $99,949 - $146,495

* Pediatric Surgery: $320,000 - $368,000

* Plastic Surgery: $237,000 - $820,000 ($412,000)

* Psychiatry: $124, 996 - $178,000

* Pulmonary Medicine: $215,000 - $417,000 ($288,000)

* Radiology: $201,000 - $911,000 ($354,000)

* Rheumatology: $179,000 - $378,000 ($229,000)

* Sports Medicine: $166,348

* Trauma Surgery: $285,117 - $340,245

* Urology: $261,000 - $619,000 ($358,000)

* Vascular Surgery: $270,000 - $525,000 ($329,000)

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Cry me a river, why don't you? In the grand scheme of things, MDs are doing well in this country and we're all footing the bill.

Paul's trying to divert the argument of the OP which is compelling. So far, none of the RWN's have been able to counter any substantive argument.

Any takers? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Paul's trying to divert the argument of the OP which is compelling. So far, none of the RWN's have been able to counter any substantive argument.

Any takers? :whistle:

Steve, it's like trying to argue with a devout Christian about who wrote the Bible. There's no compelling argument that anyone but man wrote it but try and get that into the skull of a believer. Good Luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Taiwan
Timeline

There is no liberty without compassion. It is a shame that you cannot see that. There is no place to start with you because you have lost your way. You call me a dictator. Yes... I would like a single payer,gummint run healthcare system for people who cannot afford or acquire health insurance from the for-profit insurance companies. Yes, I am able and willing to pay more taxes to help fund it. No, it does not bother me that the poor, the illegal immigrant, the disadvantaged minority, or the insane will benefit. You would reserve care for only people who can afford it. Which sounds more dictatorial to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
I would like a single payer,gummint run healthcare system for people who cannot afford or acquire health insurance from the for-profit insurance companies. Yes, I am able and willing to pay more taxes to help fund it.

Funny thing is that you'd be paying less - significantly less - if we actually had a single payer system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Paul's trying to divert the argument of the OP which is compelling. So far, none of the RWN's have been able to counter any substantive argument.

Any takers? :whistle:

re-read my first post special. I told you plenty of situations in which it's GOVERNMENT who has destroyed health care.

Of course that would require you to actually read something that isn't on one of your kook sites, now wouldn't it?


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

re-read my first post special. I told you plenty of situations in which it's GOVERNMENT who has destroyed health care.

Of course that would require you to actually read something that isn't on one of your kook sites, now wouldn't it?

It's why I typically ignore your ignorant rants. You don't know how to argue. The OP included graphs that show the difference in cost ratio between private and public insurance. You have no answer. No RWN has. So you try to divert the argument and talk about other things. I have about as much interest in reading your rants as I do reading Jared Loughner's. You're both insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Cry me a river, why don't you? In the grand scheme of things, MDs are doing well in this country and we're all footing the bill.

image.jpg

* Allergy - Immunology: $217,000 - $256,000

* Anesthesiology: $195,657 - $306,227

* Cardiology: $268,000 - $811,000 ($403,000)

* Cardiothoracic Surgery: $351,108 - $852,000

* Dentistry: $142,870

* Dermatology: $195,000 - $452,000 ($308,000)

* Emergency Medicine: $135,287 - $224,144

* Endocrinology: $171,000 - $260,000 ($187,000)

* E.N.T. Surgeon: $194,000 - $516,000 ($311,000)

* Environmental Medicine: $170,000 - $202,000

* Family Practice: $112,840 - $156,461

* Gastroenterology: $278,000 - $319,000

* Geriatrics: $155,000 - $181,000

* General Surgery: $152,605 - $296,328

* Hematology / Oncology: $181,348 - 685,000 ($245,000)

* Infectious Disease: $168,000 - $200,000

* Internal Medicine: $120,051 - $179,740

* Neonatology: $215,000 - $255,000

* Nephrology: $191,000 - $447,000 ($269,000)

* Neurology: $180,000 - $345,000 ($228,000)

* Neuroradiologist Salaries: $200,000 - $410,250

* Neurosurgery: $354,000 - $936,000 ($541,000)

* Nuclear Medicine Salaries: $250,000 - $285,000

* Obstetrics + Gynecology: $159,000 - $417,000 ($261,000)

* Occupational Medicine: $170,000 - $202,000

* Ophthalmologist: $138,000 - $716,000 ($314,000)

* Orthopedics: $228,000 - $1,352,000 ($459,000)

* Pathology: $155,000 - $210,000

* Pediatrics: $99,949 - $146,495

* Pediatric Surgery: $320,000 - $368,000

* Plastic Surgery: $237,000 - $820,000 ($412,000)

* Psychiatry: $124, 996 - $178,000

* Pulmonary Medicine: $215,000 - $417,000 ($288,000)

* Radiology: $201,000 - $911,000 ($354,000)

* Rheumatology: $179,000 - $378,000 ($229,000)

* Sports Medicine: $166,348

* Trauma Surgery: $285,117 - $340,245

* Urology: $261,000 - $619,000 ($358,000)

* Vascular Surgery: $270,000 - $525,000 ($329,000)

do you realize how many patients those doctors have to treat. How many patients lives they are responsible for?

Cry you a river? You go ahead and remember that the next time you need to go to a doctor. How about he or she cries you a river when they tell you, 'oops sorry, you have cancer.'

It's hilarious that you would chastise someone for paying hundreds of thousands to get where they are in a position and wanting to make that back up and earn a good living.

People like you are endorsing slavery these days I suppose and would rather break out your whips and shackles.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
do you realize how many patients those doctors have to treat. How many patients lives they are responsible for?

Cry you a river? You go ahead and remember that the next time you need to go to a doctor. How about he or she cries you a river when they tell you, 'oops sorry, you have cancer.'

What's your issue? I've lived where doctors made less than they do in the US and they were every bit as competent and usually more caring than what I encounter here. They had heavy patient loads all the same. And they are part of a health care system that produces results superior to those produced here at an overall far lower cost. So, yes, cry me that fcuking river. I'm ot even going to entertain your insanely ignorant "slavery" angle. You need to see a shrink, my friend. Sooner rather than later.

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...