"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:09:31 -0500, Frank Boettcher

said:

So what exactly is an UN_GODLY profit. I know what a hellacious loss
is. I lived through that.

Frank, in the lexicon of the left an Ungodly profit is any profit that
goes
to anything other than the speaker's favorite cause. Businesses aren't
supposed to earn profits they're supposed to do good deeds.

Since I'm not left-leaning, I guess my personal lexicon doesn't include
terms such as UN_GODLY profits, but it does include *price-gouging.* Profit
is hardly a dirty word, but when dealing with commodities that are literally
necessities for life and living, profits that substantially exceed the usual
and customary percentage of gross receipts can logically be thought to
result from price-gouging. Katrina was given as the substantive reason for
raising prices last year. Ostensibly the hurricane stemmed the flow of
crude from offshore rigs, it shut down a refinery or two temporarily, and it
made distribution complicated, at least in the southern tier of states. The
oil companies responded by raising prices to help control supply, which was
a prudent action. But those prices never fell back to pre-Katrina levels
following the relative normalization of the issues mentioned above. Rather
they continued to rise. Other reasons, some arcane and inexplicable, were
given by Big Oil for the continued increase in prices, but most people tend
to disbelieve them. My personal belief is that Big Oil has continued to
raise pump prices mostly because they can do so with impunity, thanks to
friendly faces in the government. I also believe the Bush Administration is
supporting Big Oil in this move in order to help gain acceptance for
drilling in ANWR.

For whatever reason, and despite a public outcry of "foul play" and
exorbitant profits, they continue to gouge the public's collective pocket
book in order to maximize the bottom line. Under the current governmental
situation, I honestly believe that Big Oil could raise the price of gasoline
to over $5 per gallon with equal impunity, if not public acceptance.

If we all didn't require gasoline as an intrinsic part of our lives, we'd
quit buying it and prices would fall as demand would be outstripped by
supply. But we don't have a choice. We must have fuels. And when the
producers of fuels are earning profits far beyond the normal percentage of
their gross receipts, the process is flawed.

Max

On Thu, 04 May 2006 04:43:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:09:31 -0500, Frank Boettcher

said:

So what exactly is an UN_GODLY profit. I know what a hellacious loss
is. I lived through that.

Frank, in the lexicon of the left an Ungodly profit is any profit that
goes
to anything other than the speaker's favorite cause. Businesses aren't
supposed to earn profits they're supposed to do good deeds.

Since I'm not left-leaning, I guess my personal lexicon doesn't include
terms such as UN_GODLY profits, but it does include *price-gouging.* Profit
is hardly a dirty word, but when dealing with commodities that are literally
necessities for life and living, profits that substantially exceed the usual
and customary percentage of gross receipts can logically be thought to
result from price-gouging. Katrina was given as the substantive reason for
raising prices last year. Ostensibly the hurricane stemmed the flow of
crude from offshore rigs, it shut down a refinery or two temporarily, and it
made distribution complicated, at least in the southern tier of states. The
oil companies responded by raising prices to help control supply, which was
a prudent action. But those prices never fell back to pre-Katrina levels
following the relative normalization of the issues mentioned above. Rather
they continued to rise. Other reasons, some arcane and inexplicable, were
given by Big Oil for the continued increase in prices, but most people tend
to disbelieve them. My personal belief is that Big Oil has continued to
raise pump prices mostly because they can do so with impunity, thanks to
friendly faces in the government. I also believe the Bush Administration is
supporting Big Oil in this move in order to help gain acceptance for
drilling in ANWR.

For whatever reason, and despite a public outcry of "foul play" and
exorbitant profits, they continue to gouge the public's collective pocket
book in order to maximize the bottom line. Under the current governmental
situation, I honestly believe that Big Oil could raise the price of gasoline
to over $5 per gallon with equal impunity, if not public acceptance.

If we all didn't require gasoline as an intrinsic part of our lives, we'd
quit buying it and prices would fall as demand would be outstripped by
supply. But we don't have a choice. We must have fuels. And when the
producers of fuels are earning profits far beyond the normal percentage of
their gross receipts, the process is flawed.

Max


Products from oil were as much a necessity in the eighties as they are
today. I didn't hear anyone raising the issue of what might happen in
the future if something wasn't done to stop the tremendous
consolidation that was taking place and the mass panic exodus of
talent from the Industry.

Health and wellness is a much more important commodity. In the
Forties the average doctor made about twice what the average worker
made and was considered well paid. Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of
available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to
the talent available. And that has been going on most of my life. As
a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as
gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that.
But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving
urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable
junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap
chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in
energy going through the roof.

I just wish I was still in the industry so that I could "benefit" from
the "price gouging" I certainly did my time with pay freezes and cuts
and layoffs, stock depreciation and dividend suspension, in the hard
times.

You either believe in free enterprise or you don't.

Frank

Frank said
You either believe in free enterprise or you don't.



BRAVO!!!!! well said Frank!

Capt. Suzy
35s5
NY

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times.

Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical
reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of
reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could
reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today
they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons
used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more
surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in
private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and
far between.

In an industry that controls supply side by the number of
available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to
the talent available.

Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My
recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in
your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians
would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as
it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the
percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance
fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from
a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering
class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified
applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of
roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school,
about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply
side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for
those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the
qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would
the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified
applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have
been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are
becoming mitigated more and more each year. Stay healthy.

And that has been going on most of my life. As
a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as
gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that.

Do you really believe physicians' fees are responsible for the high cost of
medical care? If so, you'd better do some research. Dr. fees are only a
small part of the equation. Hospital costs are a far larger percentage, and
profits to health care insurers is an equally-large percentage. And the
cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the
uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage. In any
discussion of illegal immigration, this factor must be considered, because
it's significant. My wife had an undocumented Mexican patient on her floor
at the hospital who required extensive care and treatment for a period of 6
weeks. After incurring an unpaid and unreimbursed (by the gov't.) bill in
excess of $1million, the hospital wanted to dismiss the patient to long-term
care, but no one would take her. So the hospital covered the cost of
putting the woman on a private jet and flying her to Mexico City, where she
was turned over to Mexican authorities for extended care. My guess is that
they let her die.

But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving
urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable
junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap
chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in
energy going through the roof.

Yup. Do you advocate paying more for inferior, more costly domestic goods?
Do you think you'll find anyone standing in line behind you in that
philosophy?

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times.

Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical
reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of
reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could
reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today
they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons
used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more
surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in
private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and
far between.

In an industry that controls supply side by the number of
available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to
the talent available.

Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My
recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in
your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians
would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as
it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the
percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance
fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from
a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering
class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified
applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of
roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school,
about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply
side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for
those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the
qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would
the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified
applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have
been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are
becoming mitigated more and more each year.

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is
a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at
one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately,
had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and
fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall,
than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are.

BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz. Less
places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or
higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a
determinant of needed ability.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students
during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a
desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be
involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the
prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order
was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are
we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own?
Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting
from the patriotic hip?

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed
over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a
4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as
charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics.
Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms.
Imagine that.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and
applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to
practice family medicine.

Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is
a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at
one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately,
had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and
fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall,
than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are.

Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego. Rational individuals
generally place those with PhDs above MDs in the cosmic brilliance pecking
order.


BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz.

Same here. Numerically medical schools take a higher percentage of their
qualified applicants than do veterinary schools.

Less
places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or
higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a
determinant of needed ability.

The primary reason for more applicants for fewer positions in vet schools is
that many people envision helping animals as nobler than helping humans.
Not sure why, but studies have shown that veterinary medicine is the most
desirable health care profession in the US. It's not for the money, albeit
vets have increased their fees and subsequently their incomes dramatically
over the past twenty years, relative to most other non-medical professions.

Max

In article t,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students
during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a
desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be
involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the
prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order
was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are
we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own?
Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting
from the patriotic hip?

Hmm, I think I was unclear. I have no reason to believe that ours
differ in motive from yours and would be somewhat surprised if they
did. Just that I've never seen such a survey so can't say for sure.

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed
over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a
4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as
charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics.
Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms.
Imagine that.

Which would indicate that changing from a straight GPA (TER here) as a
basis for selection would cost nothing in terms of quality of doctor
and *may* pay off in other ways.

Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth. Less than a vet surgeon tho a vet does
have the advantage of burying mistakes with less legal problems.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and
applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to
practice family medicine.

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

PDW

"Maxprop" wrote
Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego.

I always thought Cadillac drivers were the same until I bought one, then I found
that other drivers make you that way. If one is deferred to often enough one
comes to expect it. After observing how folks treated his MD uncle a buddy of
mine began using it to his own advantage. For example, if you leave a message
for a friend he may or may not get it but if you say "Tell him Dr. Daniels
called about his lab results" he almost certainly will. The down side was he
was often asked for free diagnosis. He cured that by claiming to be a
proctologist!

Maxprop wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times.

Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical
reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of
reimbursement have been cut dramatically.

That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, only one
entity to bill. In my province you submit your claim to OHIP once a
month, 21 days later they direct deposit into your account. How many
insurance companies do you have to bill each month, do they all have the
same the claim forms, same claim procedure? I'll bet this doesn't do
much to lower your administrative overhead.

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Maxprop wrote:
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times.
Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical
reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of
reimbursement have been cut dramatically.

That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, only one
entity to bill. In my province you submit your claim to OHIP once a
month, 21 days later they direct deposit into your account. How many
insurance companies do you have to bill each month, do they all have the
same the claim forms, same claim procedure? I'll bet this doesn't do
much to lower your administrative overhead.

Cheers
Marty
Medical billing is standardized in the US. Claims are submitted on
a UB-92
http://www.cigna.com/health/provider...forms/UB92.pdf
and coding is done with the ICD-9 code book. The only thing that is
different between submissions is the address on the envelope.