U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[ptwonline]

All of these are things that have been happening over the last couple decades. Many people think that Reagan started it all.

You can't credit Obama for making all that happening, all you can do is blame him for not stopping it. And the Republicans sure the hell ain't gonna stop it. They'd push all of those even further...and I do mean all of those.

I wasn't assigning any blame. just pointing out that there are reasons to think that things are not getting better.

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 03:04 AM ----------

Widespread misery? Where is this widespread misery, and how is it attributable to wealth and power disparity? Sorry, I just don't see widespread misery, at least not any more today than twenty years ago. Unless you're talking about the Occupy protesters or some such thing, then I guess I'll agree with that. They definitely seemed pretty miserable.

Very high unemployment and people out of work for very long periods of time.

Rising levels of poverty.

Disappearing retirement security (few pensions anymore, people unable to save much and rates of return on retirement accounts very low)

Rising costs for medical care and an aging population

Stagnant wages despite record corporate profits

Millions of underwater mortgages and foreclosed homes

[Dacien]

Very high unemployment and people out of work for very long periods of time.

Rising levels of poverty.

This is due to the Great Recession, not a consolidation of wealth towards the top.

Disappearing retirement security (few pensions anymore, people unable to save much and rates of return on retirement accounts very low)

Pensions have been all but abandoned in the private sector due to their financial unsustainability, in favor of more reasonable 401k plans. The public sector would do well to emulate.

Rising costs for medical care and an aging population

Stagnant wages despite record corporate profits

Medical costs have always been expensive. This is not due to wealth consolidation.

Millions of underwater mortgages and foreclosed homes

Again, due to the Great Recession. In fact, particularly because of the Great Recession, given it's very nature and major contributing factor.

[Sunseeker]

This is due to the Great Recession, not a consolidation of wealth towards the top.

Which is hitting the lower incomes considerably harder. Wealth at lower levels dropping faster than wealth at higher levels is the same as wealth at higher levels rising faster than wealth at lower levels.

Pensions have been all but abandoned in the private sector due to their financial unsustainability, in favor of more reasonable 401k plans. The public sector would do well to emulate.

Because putting your retirement hopes on a shoddy market is a great idea. Pensions were bad because they were forced to actually pay something. 401k's are nice because there's the chance of low investment and low stock growth mandating low returns.

Medical costs have always been expensive. This is not due to wealth consolidation.

Medical costs are considerably more expensive now than they have been in the past.

[Deleted]

Which is hitting the lower incomes considerably harder. Wealth at lower levels dropping faster than wealth at higher levels is the same as wealth at higher levels rising faster than wealth at lower levels.

Yes, but blaming consolidation of wealth means that the gain of the wealthy must necessarily be the loss of the poor. It ain't so, apart from a few sectors where taxpayer money bailed them out.

[emulsion]

Medical costs are considerably more expensive now than they have been in the past.

Part of that is the nature of the medical procedures/technology. They're far more complicated and more thorough than they've ever been, and of course, more expensive.

[Sunseeker]

Part of that is the nature of the medical procedures/technology. They're far more complicated and more thorough than they've ever been, and of course, more expensive.

They're also faster and more widely used, two factors that in most other areas of business, result in reduced costs.

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 06:01 AM ----------

Yes, but blaming consolidation of wealth means that the gain of the wealthy must necessarily be the loss of the poor. It ain't so, apart from a few sectors where taxpayer money bailed them out.

If we assume that neo-liberalism is right and that money isn't a zero-sum game and that no matter how badly you're losing you're still winning. I don't find that much of a convincing argument, but then I never liked Reaganomics either.

[Deleted]

If we assume that neo-liberalism is right and that money isn't a zero-sum game and that no matter how badly you're losing you're still winning. I don't find that much of a convincing argument, but then I never liked Reaganomics either.

What the hell are you on about? If you lose you lose, if you win you win. But losing does not mean someone else wins and winning does not mean someone else loses. It can happen, but it doesn't have to, and it certainly isn't zero-sum where every win is matched by an equally great loss.

This also has nothing to do with neo-liberalism, reaganomics or any specific economic theory.

If the economy is zero-sum, how come we ever progressed past a hunter-gatherer society?

[Acewipe]

They're also faster and more widely used, two factors that in most other areas of business, result in reduced costs.[COLOR="red"]

Not when a business is understaffed- medical costs can be largely attributed to huge shortages in physicians and nurses and huge over use of emergency medical services for non-emergent reasons (and then non-payment by there people that use the ER like a primary care DR).

[Catta]

Not when a business is understaffed- medical costs can be largely attributed to huge shortages in physicians and nurses and huge over use of emergency medical services for non-emergent reasons (and then non-payment by there people that use the ER like a primary care DR).

Isnt the lack of physicians the AMA's fault

[Acewipe]

Isnt the lack of physicians the AMA's fault

No. It is because becoming a doctor in the US is really not worth the time, effort and expense. There are many other career choices with a much higher return on time and investment (especially if you are going to be a primary care doc.)

[Catta]

No. It is because becoming a doctor in the US is really not worth the time, effort and expense. There are many other career choices with a much higher return on time and investment (especially if you are going to be a primary care doc.)

I see - so me getting a free medicinal education in my country puts me in a great position to make lots of money in the US...

Intriguing...

[Acewipe]

I see - so me getting a free medicinal education in my country puts me in a great position to make lots of money in the US...

Intriguing...

Maybe- but generally it is almost impossible to get a residency spot in the US without attending a US med school first.

And- if you plan on doing general/primary care, you won't make a "lot" of money anyway...

[Deleted]

No. It is because becoming a doctor in the US is really not worth the time, effort and expense. There are many other career choices with a much higher return on time and investment (especially if you are going to be a primary care doc.)

Uhhh really? Doctors are amongst the most well paid professions in the US. US doctors are paid almost twice of what their European counterparts are. Some specialized doctors are paid even more.

And AMA has massive influence over the amounts of students going into the US med schools.

[Acewipe]

Uhhh really? Doctors are amongst the most well paid professions in the US. US doctors are paid almost twice of what their European counterparts are. Some specialized doctors are paid even more.

And AMA has massive influence over the amounts of students going into the US med schools.

Uh really. A primary care doc will spend around $200K and 11 years becoming an attending physician. Then, the primary care doc can expect to make around $110K per year (which is not a lot of money when you are paying 2200 per month in student loan repayments and working 70+ hours a week)

Why would someone chose to do that (unless they really care about helping people) when you could get an engineering degree or chemistry or biochemistry and make $80-85K per year after only 4 years of effort?

Granted. if you specialize in certain areas, you will make the money back. But, under the current system, there is no incentive to be a primary care physician.

[Deleted]

Uh really. A primary care doc will spend around $200K and 11 years becoming an attending physician. Then, the primary care doc can expect to make around $110K per year (which is not a lot of money when you are paying 2200 per month in student loan repayments and working 70+ hours a week)

Why would someone chose to do that (unless they really care about helping people) when you could get an engineering degree or chemistry or biochemistry and make $80-85K per year after only 4 years of effort?

Granted. if you specialize in certain areas, you will make the money back. But, under the current system, there is no incentive to be a primary care physician.

The whole point is that due to the restriction in the amount of people that get to study medicine, the price of the education goes up. And when there are fewer Doctors, their salary goes up. This inturn increases the cost of healthcare.

Also:

[Acewipe]

The whole point is that due to the restriction in the amount of people that get to study medicine, the price of the education goes up. And when there are fewer Doctors, their salary goes up. This inturn increases the cost of healthcare.

You are missing the point. There is no shortage of doctors. There is a shortage of primary care doctors (everyone wants to make more money as a specialist). As such, the cots go up. By the way, the salaries for primary care are pretty low historically.

The problem is that medicare (and private insurance) force people to go to specialists and pay out to specialists at far more than they should, resulting in an imbalance in physicians (primary v. specialists) and in increased costs.

By the way, there is no numbers restriction concerning how many people can go to med school. Just restrictions on quality of applicants, which I personally think is necessary.

[Catta]

The whole point is that due to the restriction in the amount of people that get to study medicine, the price of the education goes up. And when there are fewer Doctors, their salary goes up. This inturn increases the cost of healthcare.

Also:

Seems like staying in Denmark is also a reasonable way to go xD

[Bridgetjones]

Uh really. A primary care doc will spend around $200K and 11 years becoming an attending physician. Then, the primary care doc can expect to make around $110K per year (which is not a lot of money when you are paying 2200 per month in student loan repayments and working 70+ hours a week)

Why would someone chose to do that (unless they really care about helping people) when you could get an engineering degree or chemistry or biochemistry and make $80-85K per year after only 4 years of effort?

Granted. if you specialize in certain areas, you will make the money back. But, under the current system, there is no incentive to be a primary care physician.

There are actually a good number of loan forgiveness programs for PCPs; rural medicine springs to mind. I do believe that a flaw with the system is when specialists are not allowed to work as generalists. For example, if you are a plastic surgeon, you have your 4 year BS, 4 year MD, 4 year residency, and 2 year fellowship before being board certified. At this point, you're no longer allowed to perform general surgery regardless of your skill, education, or capability. This system protects the opportunities of generalists so they're not left in the dust by specialists taking their patients, but if there actually is a need for more general medicine, specialists ought to be allowed to fill in the gap.

[Acewipe]

There are actually a good number of loan forgiveness programs for PCPs; rural medicine springs to mind.

There are some, but not many (and you usually have to pay on the loans for 10 years anyway).

Another problem (in addition to what you mentioned) is that generalists and pcps are not allowed to do many things that they are perfectly capable of doing without referring to a specialist - so it really goes both ways.

[Deleted]

You are missing the point. There is no shortage of doctors. There is a shortage of primary care doctors (everyone wants to make more money as a specialist). As such, the cots go up. By the way, the salaries for primary care are pretty low historically.

The problem is that medicare (and private insurance) force people to go to specialists and pay out to specialists at far more than they should, resulting in an imbalance in physicians (primary v. specialists) and in increased costs.

By the way, there is no numbers restriction concerning how many people can go to med school. Just restrictions on quality of applicants, which I personally think is necessary.

There's a limited amount that each medical school can take, and AMA through state medical boards control the amount approved schools as well involve themselves in the process of setting these restriction on who passes. Afaik they also have a say in the whole residency process.

And you're wrong when you say that there are no shortage of doctors. Their high salaries are already a good indicator on that. Normally such higher wages would attract more doctors to the field. The increased demand for medical education would make it profitable to establish new medical schools. This would allow more doctors to be trained and would drive down the wages of doctors. This isn't happening though because there's an artificial bottleneck.