2 ms·

> Doctor wages contribute way more than silly insurance companies whose margins are lower single digits. The numbers don't back this up. https://www.cms.gov/fi

> Doctor wages contribute way more than silly insurance companies whose margins are lower single digits. The numbers don't back this up. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nations-health-dollar-where-it-came-where-it-went.pdf https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nations-health-dollar-whe... > There should be a good career ladder for nurses to become actual doctors if they perform well on the job. Again, that's most frequently called becoming a nurse practitioner.

simianwords 1y ago
Wrong. This is just the money government spends which goes to insurance which is used to pay doctors. Don’t use these figures.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Go on, give us the right figures, then. The first chart includes "private healthcare insurance" as an input, so I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The $4.9 trillion detailed in this chart is "the official [estimate] of total health care spending in the United States". https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/historical https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...
LambdaComplex 1y ago
> Again, that's most frequently called becoming a nurse practitioner. Personally, I would always rather see a physician due to how much more training/experience they have. A physician who's out of residency will have gotten at least 3 years of on the job training (after medical school). A nurse practitioner may have just gotten their BSN and then gone straight into an NP program without ever working a single day as a nurse. But yes, you're right, this person is absolutely describing NPs.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Personally, I would always rather see a physician due to how much more training/experience they have. There's a very good chance, if you're seeing a NP, that the NP has a lot more experience with that sort of condition than the docs. After all, the practice is sending those sorts of issues to the NP. My dad's a radiologist, but they haven't assessed a minor break in decades, because they're very subspecialized. If it's unusual or complex, the NP is probably the first to say "we'll need to make an appt with Dr. So and So".
labcomputer 1y ago
Those graphs don't really refute the point. Look at the buckets: Things like Dental Services, Home Health Care, Nursing Care Facilities... This tells you about healthcare spending at the macro level, but doesn't explain why a particular doctor visit cost so much (I don't use any "nursing care facilities" or "dental services" when I visit the doctor for a sprained ankle, for example). When you go to the doctor for a sprained ankle, where does that money go? By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). Where does the other 85% go? Certainly some it is the cost of running a clinic (staff, rent, equipment, etc), but what about the rest? Then look at doctor's income. Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Where do you think that money comes from?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). That's quite a bit to a middleman. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ "According to Reinhardt, “doctors’ net take-home pay (that is income minus expenses) amounts to only about 10% of overall health care spending." It's also a big incentive for the insurer to increase prices. If they want more revenues, and more profits, they have to get overall spending to go up. > Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Good. They should.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  > By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). I'm aware of two huge exceptions that are large enough to make this basically not-true. 1) This doesn't apply when they're administering a self-funded plan, like most plans provided by large companies. This represents a giant chunk of US health insurance. 2) This doesn't apply to new plans (I believe in the first two years of operation). I admit I've not looked into it, but I'd be shocked if this isn't being gamed such that a fairly high proportion of plans that aren't excluded by #1, are always "new" and so not subject to those limits.

simianwords 1y ago

Wrong. This is just the money government spends which goes to insurance which is used to pay doctors. Don’t use these figures.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Go on, give us the right figures, then. The first chart includes "private healthcare insurance" as an input, so I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The $4.9 trillion detailed in this chart is "the official [estimate] of total health care spending in the United States". https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/historical https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...

LambdaComplex 1y ago

> Again, that's most frequently called becoming a nurse practitioner. Personally, I would always rather see a physician due to how much more training/experience they have. A physician who's out of residency will have gotten at least 3 years of on the job training (after medical school). A nurse practitioner may have just gotten their BSN and then gone straight into an NP program without ever working a single day as a nurse. But yes, you're right, this person is absolutely describing NPs.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Personally, I would always rather see a physician due to how much more training/experience they have. There's a very good chance, if you're seeing a NP, that the NP has a lot more experience with that sort of condition than the docs. After all, the practice is sending those sorts of issues to the NP. My dad's a radiologist, but they haven't assessed a minor break in decades, because they're very subspecialized. If it's unusual or complex, the NP is probably the first to say "we'll need to make an appt with Dr. So and So".

labcomputer 1y ago

Those graphs don't really refute the point. Look at the buckets: Things like Dental Services, Home Health Care, Nursing Care Facilities... This tells you about healthcare spending at the macro level, but doesn't explain why a particular doctor visit cost so much (I don't use any "nursing care facilities" or "dental services" when I visit the doctor for a sprained ankle, for example). When you go to the doctor for a sprained ankle, where does that money go? By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). Where does the other 85% go? Certainly some it is the cost of running a clinic (staff, rent, equipment, etc), but what about the rest? Then look at doctor's income. Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Where do you think that money comes from?

ceejayoz 1y ago
> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). That's quite a bit to a middleman. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ "According to Reinhardt, “doctors’ net take-home pay (that is income minus expenses) amounts to only about 10% of overall health care spending." It's also a big incentive for the insurer to increase prices. If they want more revenues, and more profits, they have to get overall spending to go up. > Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Good. They should.
yepitwas 1y ago
> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). I'm aware of two huge exceptions that are large enough to make this basically not-true. 1) This doesn't apply when they're administering a self-funded plan, like most plans provided by large companies. This represents a giant chunk of US health insurance. 2) This doesn't apply to new plans (I believe in the first two years of operation). I admit I've not looked into it, but I'd be shocked if this isn't being gamed such that a fairly high proportion of plans that aren't excluded by #1, are always "new" and so not subject to those limits.